The Death of Beautiful Rendition and 3D Pop on Modern Lenses

With the release of high-quality modern lenses that are made to satisfy our insatiable appetite for sharpness, it seems that they also come with a curse. Unlike older classics that shone with their stunning look and feel, along with their beautiful rendition qualities that resulted in particularly attractive photographs with subjects popping out of the scene (also known as “3D pop”), it seems like modern lenses are no longer equipped to give us this magic – they are made to look flat and dull, lacking the character of the old classics. In this article, we will go through a number of different images shot with modern lenses and compare them to their classic counterparts and see how they do. Grab a cup of coffee, sit tight and put on your glasses, because you will need them. And yes, that even applies to those with 20/20 vision.

Note: Since this is a rather controversial subject, I highly recommend that you read the whole article through, especially the last paragraph.

It is a known fact that many photographers lust after the latest and greatest gear on the market. While it is understandable why one would want the latest generation DSLR or mirrorless camera, it might be a good idea to hold off on the latest versions of lenses. Why? Because modern lenses are only made to yield the best sharpness possible. This means that they are essentially over-corrected for astigmatism, spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, distortion, vignetting, coma and many other aberrations, some of which are yet unknown to mankind. As a result, we end up with big, bulky and heavy lenses that have way too many lens elements. And if you know anything about optics, you should already know that more elements rob of light, tonality, micro-contrast, depth and feel – things you cannot gain back or recplicate in post-processing. This is very serious to the level that we can safely make the following claim (backed by evidence presented below, of course): modern lenses trade beautiful life-like rendition and 3D pop for ultimate sharpness.

The Lies of Lens Manufacturers

For the past 10+ years, camera manufacturers have been continuously lying to their customers. They are making modern lenses with all kinds of new lens elements that are supposed to correct for different lens aberrations. Never before we were faced with so many confusing lens elements that require an optical dictionary to make any sense out of them: aspherical, low-dispersion, extra low-dispersion, super low-dispersion, high-refractive index, fluorite, etc – you name it! And that’s not even counting all the crazy coatings like: nano, super integrated coating, SWC, HD, eBAND, Spectra, T*, BARR, so on and so forth. It looks like lens manufacturers are engaged in deception and confusion tactics to make people as unaware of what they are doing as possible. And it seems to be working quite well for them too. Just take a look at how profitable lens manufacturers have been getting, pushing all that “super duper” meaningless glass. On top of that, we now have manufacturers like Zeiss, who are appealing to all the sharpness freaks, by making lenses that have as many lens elements as there are people who believe in spherical earth theory, resulting in optical junk that weighs more than the camera itself and costing as much as a used car. Photography websites are paying too much attention to meaningless things like sharpness and bokeh, while forgetting about things that truly matter in photography: tonality, life-like rendition, depth, 3D pop, micro-contrast and color precision.

Lastly, I still cannot get over the fact that all modern lenses no longer use lead as part of the chemical formula when making glass elements. Lead glass is far more efficient than non-leaded glass when it comes to its refractive index, so if manufacturers continued to use as much lead as possible when making lens elements, we would not have to add those robbing corrective lens elements that make our images look dull and unreal. I am not sure what EPA and FDA was thinking – it is not like anyone would be eating those lenses in the first place! And who dumps their lenses in trash? I don’t. And I know of many others that don’t. I can statistically prove that photographers don’t just trash their lenses – we mostly resell or keep them.

It truly boggles my mind to see such trends in our industry! Enough of ranting, let’s jump to images and side-by-side comparisons to prove that modern lenses are junk compared to their older counterparts. Let’s start with the death of the 3D pop.

Death of 3D Pop – Too Many Lens Elements

As stated above, modern lenses rob them of special qualities that result in life-like images. While all images are two dimensional, when shot with enough subject isolation, it is possible to create a 3D effect, where the subject naturally pops out of the scene, giving it depth and dimension. This is obviously not quantifiable or measurable, which is why you won’t see discussions on “3D pop” in various reviews, but they are easily seen in images. Let’s start by discussing a photograph, so that you can understand what I mean exactly by “3D pop”:

Notice how the cat “pops” from the scene with a 3D-look and feel that cannot be replicated on modern lensesNIKON D750 + 85mm f/1.4D @ 85mm, ISO 1000, 1/200, f/4.0

The above photograph was captured with the classic Nikon NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4D, a stunning lens in every way. While the lens is not very sharp wide open, don’t discount its resolving power capabilities – stopped down even slightly, the lens is insanely sharp! But that’s what a normal review would have you focus on – “sharpness”. What about its other optical characteristics that make it a far superior lens compared to its new replacement, the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G? First of all, it has a unique way to draw subjects, something very few other lenses can. Immediately, you can see stunning depth and phenomenal rendition in every photograph and the above image is the proof of that. Even at f/4 (stopped down to bring more of the cat into focus), the cat clearly pops out of the scene, while the background appears beautiful with stunning bokeh, which helps draw the viewer’s attention into the center subject of the scene. The colors of the cat and the greenery right next to it appear life-like, as if the cat is right there with you. The photograph was taken late in the afternoon and the light bounces everywhere, making tonal transitions impeccable.

Modern lenses are incapable of producing such depth and 3-dimensionality for a number of reasons. The main reason is the number of elements – too many corrective lens elements rob light, making subjects appear dull and lifeless. The Nikon 85mm f/1.4D has a total of 9 lens elements in 8 groups, which is already a bit too high for a prime lens (ideally, you would want a lens that has between 5 to 7 lens elements max), but it is still better than what its replacement, the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G has to offer – a total of 10 elements in 9 groups! That one extra element on the 85mm f/1.4G design was completely unnecessary, but Nikon included it to add more sharpness through corrections, which obviously make subjects more flat in comparison. That’s why many photographers refused to upgrade to the newest version, because they saw how dull it was compared to the classic.

The Nikon 85mm f/1.4D is not a sole example of a beautiful lens design that results in so much depth. Even the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D classic added a dimension to photographs its modern counterparts cannot:

The now “classic” 50mm f/1.4D only had 7 elements, which resulted in a much more natural rendering of the scene and exceptional ability to separate subject from the background. The newer 50mm f/1.4G and especially the 50mm f/1.8G are bad, lacking such characteristics and looking very flat in comparisonNIKON D750 + 50mm f/1.4D @ 50mm, ISO 400, 1/200, f/2.8

Look at how smoothly focus transitions from sharp to creamy – the subject looks stunning at f/2.8, while the background adds both depth and tonality to the image, creating a very life-like 3D effect. Even the out of focus regions of the cat (specifically its darker fur spots), has distinct lines that do not appear “muddy” and “washed out”, something we often see too much on modern lenses. Having shot with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art, I saw so much of this behavior in photographs, that it was seriously disturbing. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is a beast with way too many corrective lens elements, making it a lifeless and dull lens that is only capable of rendering flat images in the field. I am yet to see a beautiful image from this lens for that reason alone!

Prime Lenses vs Zoom Lenses – Glass is Evil

The biggest optical abusers are, without a doubt, zoom lenses. They are particularly evil when it comes to robbing subjects of light, texture and depth. Don’t believe me? Put a zoom lens and a prime lens side by side and you will immediately see a huge difference between the two when it comes to 3D pop, rendition, tonality and texture. Once you see how bad zoom lenses are, you will only want to shoot with prime lenses, period! I know these are very bold claims, which is why I prepared a couple of side-by-side images for you:

Which image do you think is from a zoom and which one was made by a prime? The answer should be very apparent – the “before” image (the one with the brighter corners) was shot with the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR zoom lens, while the “after” image was shot with the Nikon 85mm f/1.4D. I took this photo at 85mm on the 24-120mm and right after capturing the shot, I immediately noticed how lifeless, flat and dull it looked when compared to the image from the 85mm f/1.4D. If the images are too small to judge, why don’t you try opening them in full size using this link from the 24-120mm f/4G VR and this link from the 85mm f/1.4D.

It is very clear that the image from the 24-120mm f/4G VR looks very flat – take a look at the out of focus regions, where the lens is not even capable of showing enough out of focus detail. Everything looks mudded and washed out. Now take a look at the center of attention – the green tomato. It looks dirty and ugly, with a mixture of colors that weren’t even there. It is as if the lens is adding color that wasn’t there in the first place. And that makes sense, with a total of 17 lens elements in 13 groups, this lens will never be able to produce what a simpler 9 element lens can. The above is an example of why zoom lenses are so evil. Zoom lenses are only capable of making 2-dimensional images that look flat and lifeless. Keep in mind, that when it comes to glass, top quality to crap quality, they all have dielectric capacitance, which makes up energy, which makes up light! To make it simple, if you want to create beautiful images, never use zoom lenses and especially avoid using lenses with too many corrective lens elements.

And please, don’t even get me started on superzooms. They are the curse of modern optics…

Lead Glass vs No-Lead Glass – Makes a Huge Difference

Did you know that lens elements that contain a big amount of lead have a much higher refractive index compared to non-lead glass? It is a well-known fact and the reason why older lenses used to be simpler in optical design! The thing is, when you have lead glass, you don’t have to worry about correcting spherical aberrations as much, because unlike regular glass, lead glass can transmit more light and automatically correct most aberrations out there. Lead is why some of the oldest Nikon glass used to weigh so much, but think of all the benefits they gave us – stunning depth in images, indisputable tonality that cannot be obtained with modern lenses, and such amazing levels of micro-contrast and clarity. Take a look at the below image to see what I mean:

The amazing NIKKOR Micro Ai-S 55mm f/2.8 clearly shows how much modern lenses look “flat” in comparison, lacking the “3D pop” and micro-contrast. As you can see from the sample image, the 55mm f/2.8 looks stunning even stopped down to f/4. showing its unique ability to not only pop the subjects from the background, but also in its ability to render natural-looking out of focus areas.NIKON D750 + Micro Ai-S 55mm f/2.8 @ 55mm, ISO 560, 1/200, f/4

The old Micro Ai-S 55mm f/2.8 classic is a very small lens and yet it packs 285 grams of weight on it thanks to lead-filled glass, while the modern 50mm f/1.8G is so much lighter at mere 185 grams. The difference is very clear when you shoot with both side-by-side – the 55mm f/2.8 has stunning rendition with a 3D pop that the 50mm f/1.8G will never be able to produce, no matter how much you try. Take a look at the above example with the same Bengal cat. Stopped down just by one stop, it yields sharpness unlike any other modern lens and it packs so much depth and clarity! The cat is beautifully isolated from the background scene and the lavender colors stand out very clearly from all the greenery as well. On a modern lens, it is hard to distinguish those colors because everything gets thrown into the mix, making images very muddy and ugly. This image has so much tonality to it – look at every shade of color and you will see that nothing gets mixed up anywhere. Even though the cat is not back-lit, the lens does such a phenomenal job at color renditions, that the cat just pops out of the scene. This is yet another showcase for the stunning 3D pop we never see on modern lenses.

Here is another example of a lens that has quite a bit of lead in it:

Another case for a stunning life-like rendition of Nikkor classics – the NOCT is capable of creating stunning depth and sharpness that cannot be rivaled by modern lensesNIKON D750 + NOCT Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 @ 58mm, ISO 250, 1/100, f/1.8

Without a doubt, the NOCT-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is a stunning lens in every way and there is no modern lens that can do what this lens is capable of, including the ability to render life-like subjects. While it might not be super sharp wide open at f/1.2, stopping the lens to just f/1.8 produces results that will satisfy any pixel-peeper out there. Just take a look at how much detail there is in the cat photo above – you can literally see every whisker and piece of fur, and if you look at the ear details, you can even see the individual blood veins inside the ear! There is a lot of color separation we witness here, from brights to darks, everywhere in the scene. Even the green trash bin in the background appears beautifully smooth and there are no distracting bokeh elements or rings to be seen anywhere. The cat pops out of the scene and it almost looks like it is walking right at you – that’s how powerful a lens can make an image appear. Capture a few shots like this and put them in an international photography competition and you will be guaranteed to win, especially if the judge is going to be knowledgeable enough to understand everything I have discussed so far in this article (Note: just in case, send the judges the link to this article, so that they know what to look for).

Modern Prime vs Classic Prime

Let’s take a look at another example of how bad modern lenses are compared to their classic counterparts with less elements. Take a look at the below image of the same cat, captured right after sunset:

It hurts my eyes to look at this image for a number of reasons. First of all, this was shot with the modern Nikon 105mm f/2.8G VR Micro, a lens with 14 total elements in 12 groups! That’s a heck of a lot of elements for a prime, don’t you think? Especially when you compare it to the classic Nikon 105mm f/2.5 lead glass that only has a total of 5 lens elements! You would think that a lens with 3x the number of optical elements would yield stunning images, but that’s definitely not the case. I am not sure what Nikon was thinking with such a complex optical formula, but it is clear that they messed up, especially when a lens with only 5 elements can easily outperform its modern counterpart in every way. If you have ever shot with the legendary 105mm f/2.5, you would know exactly what I am talking about!

Grand Unified Theory of Everything

On a somewhat unrelated note, I am happy to report that I stumbled upon the Grand Unifying Theory of Everything (physics) while doing research for this article. If you aren’t familiar, the biggest problem in physics today is that quantum mechanics and general relativity (small-scale and big-scale physics) aren’t compatible when you’re dealing with high-gravity, small-scale environments, like the singularity in a black hole. And when two theories aren’t compatible, you know that one (or both) must be wrong.

It sounds like very complicated stuff, but I realized how simple this problem really is when you just approach it intuitively. Think about a camera lens, and how it works. As I’ve just shown, lenses with very few glass-to-air surfaces have far more 3D pop and micro-contrast than the newest lenses on the market that various corporations are trying to sell. But how could this be true when light is the fastest-moving object in the universe — which is exactly what quantum mechanics “claims”?

No, this effect would only be possible if light wasn’t the fastest object in the universe — if there was something faster that raced ahead of the light, then rebounded on the glass to block part of the incoming light. And that something is the ether.

For all of history, from the Ancient Greeks to modern-day scientists inspired by Nikola Tesla, the fact of the ether has been well-known. But when “scientists” like Albert Einstein started talking about general relativity, corporations lapped it up. Why? Simple. The existence of the ether means that people can harness free energy via the natural power of the universe. But if corporations can convince everyone that it doesn’t exist, oil and energy companies across the world can rake up hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

The existence of the ether has been well-known for millennia, but it wasn’t until my simple glass-to-air thought experiment that normal people could understand how simple it is. Even Nikola Tesla agrees: “Explaining the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether is futile.” Since neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity is necessary given the existence of the ether, their supposed incompatibility is a non-issue (although it wasn’t my intent, my glass-to-air thought experiment also explains why magnets and magnetism work — something that even corporate-backed scientists like Richard Feynman said they couldn’t easily explain).

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this really shows the duplicity of today’s camera and lens corporations. They have known for decades that the ether exists, and that their new lenses would be low-contrast and ugly. But profit drives everything in this world, which is why today’s lenses are so unusable.

Summary

Let’s wrap up the above information into a simple summary: only buy classic low-element prime lenses with lead glass elements – everything else is junk, as proven by the image samples and comparisons in this article. Sell every modern lens you have (you should have no problems with this, as long as you keep stating that it is “sharp”), especially if it has more than 9 lens elements. Unless you want flat, lifeless images that lack 3D pop, depth, dimensionality, clarity, micro-contrast and tonality, you should never touch zoom lenses, especially superzooms – don’t trade beauty for convenience. Why bother spending all that money on modern lenses, when classic lenses from 10+ years ago are so much better in every way? Those corrective lens elements (especially plastic aspherical lens elements) are the work of the devil and should always be avoided at all costs. And lastly, don’t be a victim to modern day marketing – there is absolutely no need to buy expensive, high-end lenses. Aside from sharpness, they add nothing else to your images, period.

P.S. I hope our readers realize that this article is a satirical piece, aimed at poking fun at those individuals and websites that post nonsense information about lenses and their “unique” qualities. In an upcoming article, we will reveal some facts and hopefully put some of the above arguments to rest. If you had fun reading this article and you can relate to some of the terminology and claims used in the article, please share your thoughts below :)

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

If you enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to our email newsletter to receive biweekly emails notifying you of the latest articles posted on the website. Email Address First Name

By checking this box I consent to the use of my information, as detailed in the Privacy Policy.

Related articles:

About Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov is the author and founder of Photography Life, based out of Denver, Colorado. He is recognized as one of the leading educators in the photography industry, conducting workshops, producing educational videos and frequently writing content for Photography Life. You can follow him on Instagram, 500px and Facebook. Read more about Nasim here.

Did you mean to name yourself “Lens expert”? I think you’ve made a typo :)

Zeiss uses any glass they can source from any manufacturer, as long as the price is right. It can include a number of different manufacturers from Hoya and Ohara to Schott and Sumita. Some cine and high-end lenses might use Schott glass (which is made in many different locations in the world, including Malaysia and China) that contains lead, in addition to titanium and lanthanum oxide for hardening leaded glass, but that’s about it. In most cases, lead is no longer used in the manufacturing process, because newer low-dispersion glass can closely match the refractive index of leaded glass, so the use of lead is no longer needed. And many countries have already banned lead, arsenic and thorium oxide in consumer products due to worker health and environmental concerns. So if you look at modern Zeiss lenses, they won’t contain any lead anymore. Yes, it is a known fact that leaded glass does have higher refractive index than non-leaded glass, and it can lead to higher light transmission levels on lenses, but modern computer-based optical designs can compensate for any losses by optimizing lens design using newer types of lens elements (low-dispersion, extra / super low-dispersion, etc). Top that with higher manufacturing tolerances than what we have had in the past and you have lenses that are very comparable in both sharpness and light transmission qualities. Lead has not been used in any lenses for over 20 years now and its limited use has only been reserved for special high-end optical applications in industrial labs. Therefore, as of today, there are no manufacturers (including Zeiss) that use lead in their lenses.

Lastly, some manufacturers like Hoya and Zeiss have found ways to make lead-free glass that has even higher index of refraction using glass and plastic elements. Casio even came up with ceramic lenses that highly exceed leaded glass in transmission performance, but unfortunately, manufacturers have not yet adopted this technology, because it is expensive to replace their current glass molding factories.

In short, lead is NOT the reason why lenses from Zeiss or other manufacturers yield some “magical” images. That’s nonsense backed with zero evidence. If you have any proof, please present it here and we will be happy to look into it. And I would also love to see proof of your statement that Zeiss is still using lead in their lenses…

Of course they’ll say it, because lead is specifically used in high-end optics and as I have already explained above, it is reserved to industrial applications where it is needed. Lead has not been used in lenses for over 20 years now in consumer goods. None of the lens manufacturers today, including Schott, are using lead as part of the glass molding process for camera lenses.

In fact, if you are open to a friendly discussion, I would be happy to discuss this topic in more detail with a Zeiss engineer. If lead is indeed used on modern Zeiss lenses, I will admit my fault, publicly apologize and certainly include the necessary information in the upcoming article. I have reached out to my contact at Zeiss and I will keep you posted on the development, as soon as I hear back.

In other words, he’s knowingly or unknowingly misleading his audience. I totally accept this is poisoning the well, but if you take a look at the comment here — photochirp.com/infor…omment-176 — you will see the kind of person you are dealing with. A hypocrite at best.

On one hand, he clearly states someone is “mentally ill and delusional son” and that “mirrorless advantages is 95% bullshit” and there’s “One advantage only. Focus peaking on mf lenses” but on the other, he raves about an EVF — youtu.be/fxEP8vvxDAI?t=162 — and states he can easily think of a dozen reasons an EVF benefits a camera. Is it one reason when it’s made by Sony and a dozen when it’s made by another manufacturer? It wasn’t so long ago that he was ranting about Sony’s sealing in cameras, then he discovered other manufacturers lack sealing so he came up with a perfect solution fallacy, i.e. you cannot perfectly seal a camera. This was followed by a “magnesium oxide” will “short” your camera; you guessed it–magnesium oxide doesn’t conduct electricity. I accept this article isn’t about mirrorless cameras, but my point is that the guy you’re talking to isn’t capable of being civil, reasonable, logical or even knowledgeable. He cannot do basic calculations (www.youtube.com/watch…85TzSaSH50 — (10 / 2 = 5. 24 x 10 = 240. So, 240 / 2 = 120 hours), so he sure as hell isn’t going to be able to understand lens design from a mathematical point of view.

In regards to the topic, there’s a million and one reasons prime lenses are better than zooms but there’s also reasons zoom lenses are better than primes. I don’t like to involve myself in debates where strong convictions outweigh strong evidence, so I am not going to get too involved in this. In regards to the exact materials used, with Zeiss, it depends on the model of lens you’re talking about and where it’s manufactured e.g. Zeiss Otus lenses use different doping to Zeiss Batis lenses. Your source will confirm this. Zeiss essentially owns Schott.

There’s no need to apologise regarding leaded glass either way. Most people don’t care for the facts, and if they did, they’d email Zeiss directly. This article was a fun read from the intended satirical point of view but you’re wasting your time arguing with this guy. What’s really amusing is that it wasn’t so long ago he said “This is the stuff that Nikon and Zeiss won’t tell you…” ~ www.youtube.com/watch…#038;t=125 yet below he’s quoting them. By the way, it’s 1400 to 1500 °C, and it’s no trade secret. It doesn’t have to be. Their lenses are patented.

Normally my post would seem like argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well, but my argument in its entirety is that some villages have a toxic dump, World War 2 had Hitler, and the online photographic community has The Angry Photographer. It doesn’t matter whether you’re wrong or right, because for every bit of information you get wrong, he’s already uploaded 100 videos of fictitious fallacious illogical drivel.

Lucky, thanks for the detailed explanations and quotes – those were interesting to check out. After he posted a couple of comments here, he released a video attacking the Sensor Gel Stick :)

I am not going to respond, since I don’t see the point (especially after seeing all the details from you). He should visit a Leica store in Germany – those are selling quite a few of the Sensor Gel Sticks to Leica shooters.

lens expert

July 25, 2017 at 9:23 pm

ZEISS.COM By the addition of different metal oxides and fluorides (1%), the optical properties and color of the glass can be deliberately changed. The >>>>>> addition of lead <<<<<<<, titanium and lanthanum oxide increases, for example, the refractive index, while barium oxide and fluoride reduce dispersion. The glass melt can also be dyed for tinted sunglass lenses by the use of iron, cobalt, vanadium and manganese. To obtain photochromic properties, metal compounds are added with fluorine, chlorine and bromine (halides) to the melt.

Do you realize that you copy-pasted text from Eye Care sub-section of Zeiss? Like stated above, Zeiss no longer uses lead in camera lenses. This has been the case for over 20 years now. None of the Japanese and US glass manufacturers like Ohara (which Zeiss often buys glass from) use lead in their lenses. As of today, Schott is probably an exception – it makes less than 15% leaded glass, which is reserved for specific industrial applications, as stated above. Zeiss uses high-grade glass from a number of different manufacturers and with Cosina assembling Zeiss lenses in Japan, that glass often comes from Japanese manufacturers, since the Japanese government is pretty protective when it comes to importing optics from other countries.

Well Ken you have clearly bitten off more than you can chew here. Nasim is correct. Furthermore he is a respected writer, excellent photographer and gentleman. Don’t embarrass yourself further. Nasim thank you for so humorously exposing this fraud and it’s chief proponent.

There’s always the pseudo-sophisticate who thinks HIS senses are so superior that he can detect differences the rest of us peasants can not. Audiophiles, photophiles,gastrophiles, oenophiles, etc. Even extends to martini drinking spies (Shaken, not stirred)

Tom, when I was buying high-end speakers for my basement, the seller at Best Buy tried to sell me power cables for $300 each and tried to assure me that I would be immediately able to hear differences. They were simply higher-gauge cables that looked pretty! So I went on Amazon, bought a higher gauge cable for 1/10th of the price and called it a day. The same goes for speaker wire – I could have spent as much money as my whole basement remodeling cost me on just speaker wires, which is ridiculous!

If someone has amazingly sensitive ears that can hear a difference, good for them. But I won’t be spending my hard earned money on this foolishness.

Hilarious article! This satire is spot on. I’m so tired of that snake oil YouTube character. I cannot fathom how or why he has subscribers. I suppose it is living proof that readers want confirmation for some diffuse notion they have inside so they need witch doctors. And curse any scientist or professional journalist that would inquire for facts. The most disgusting thing with the Angry Photographer is that he is an awful photographer that know nothing about picture making. He merely collects gear and has worked in a camera store. Which means nothing.

Last night in his live stream, he said how the shoot with Jason Lanier was disgusting, he never wanted to do it like that, he “regretted” doing it and that the model posed herself and he wasn’t able to pose her. Not only is there video evidence of him posing the model, what a disrespectful thing to say after Jason Lanier paid for everything. She even said to him “I don’t know why you’re called The Angry Photographer.” I hope someone uploads the live stream somewhere.

Man I really thought I was reading an article from the Angry Photographer. I had to double check if Nasim wrote it. I was already expecting: Period. “Fact. That’s a fact. I don’t care who said it, its a FACT. 100% undeniable truth. Fail. FAIL. You FAAAIL. Silk and Sugar.”

Eric, how could you? That’s just garbage glass you got there. No lead, no depth, no rendition, no tonality to your images. Time to get rid of that glass (which I would be happy to assist with) and trade up to the classics. Ever heard of the 600mm f/4 AiS? I think that will suit your needs nicely.

Glen, the eye does not project to a flat sensor, so a single element lens would not work. Hopefully one day, once curved sensors become a reality, we will have lenses with only a couple of lens elements. Add a bunch of lead to them and images will be popping out of the screen!

Hi Nasim, loved the article. On a somewhat serious note, your comment about a “curved sensor” struck home. When designing sensors for semiconductor process control, I actually suggested we use multiple detector elements arranged on a curved surface to allow for a simple lens scheme which would produce a curved image plane. Never heard anyone else suggest such – even if you are saying it tongue in cheek. I was aiming at something less than 10 elements – doable in assembly. But to take a modern megapixel sensor and put it on a curved surface – haven’t seen a way to do that yet. But if someone could figure out how, think of the cost savings – so much less expensive glass.

Yeah right and 90 % of the human field of vision is out of focus. Only by incessant “stitching” and eye movements by the brain do we perceive a world in focus. The eye is junk compared to my Laowa 12mm or my Sigma 15mm. I will keep my eyes for sentimental reasons. They are not going on ebay. I do see your point: in one of the backgrounds there is horrible out-of-focus reeds: yellowish with artificial green edges. No pop? I use the HDR function in photoshop on a single 16 bit tiff created in Lightroom from raw and am happy with the “pop”. It improves the images a lot.

Love the dynamics that you point out and explain, and your perspective. I correctly judged the first lens comparo above; it’s visible to the eye. Similarly, I only shoot with primes (part of your point), which can also be a real pain in the butt by the way. I have two 1950s Leica lens that I will pull out at the end of shoots, once I know I have gotten what the client needs, and I have that old Nikon 50 1.4D that you reference which I’ll now go experiment more with. But my main work lens are modern Zeiss or Sony?Zeiss lens… the 35 1.4 Distagon which I totally feels has pop as does the Sony Zeiss 50 1.4 Planar… and the Batis 85 1.8. These are modern and electronic-friendly… The pop seems to come. Thoughts/responses/rebuttals welcome! So, in short, I totally agree and yet at least with the Zeiss puppies that I have, I feel like my dogs hunt. Thanks as always for your excellent work, Naseam. :))

Glad to see you’ve finally come to your senses, Nasim. I’ve been telling you for years that all of your lens tests are a waste of time! The true test of a lens is how it makes you feel inside. Also, I’ve found that singing to my lenses for at least 10 minutes every day helps them produce better images. You might want to give it a try on those older lenses you have… it should really help to give them more 3D Pop.

Tried to be funny, but you hit on something true. Photography is all about emotion and I think we all have lenses that make us happy because of the way they capture some aspect of the scene in front of us. Whether you’re a wildlife photographer who loves his 600mm f/5.6 or like me, a portraitist who still gets misty about the old 105 f/2.5—certain lenses do make you feel. Don’t be ashamed to admit it.

PG, I can see why it might not seem very amusing for a person who perhaps has not seen content on the web that is full of lies and deception – I specifically worded the article to reflect that. Whenever you see absurd statements about 3D pop, depth, dimensionality, tonality and other similar key words used to describe unique quality of old lenses with fewer elements when compared to new ones, it is time to move on and skip the BS.

And by the way, the original plan was to write an article to debunk the lies, which I will be working on later this week.

It’s more of a sarcasm than satirical. It’s so obvious who you’re “poking fun” with. I can’t wait ’till you reveal your “facts” in your next article.

PS: I provided a list of His favorite lenses below. At least try one of those with your upcoming factual article. He kinda hates that 58mm noct you used in this article simply because it’s nothing like the cat’s [email protected]# or the bee’s knees!

Hi Nasim, I like to read photographylife.com, some serious knowledge can be found here but I have to say this – Could you please link website (full of lies and deception) you referring to? When we criticize something or someone it is nice to be specific otherwise its just gossip…

Paul, you can find the link under comment #27. Angry Photographer is a guy on YouTube who says a lot of what has been written in the article, including claims on Grand Unified Theory on Everything + ether.

Funny but somewhat disingenuous. In the comments of your review of the Zeiss Distagon T 35mm f/2 ZF.2 you wrote this on January 8th, 2015:

“Microcontrast is not always better on Zeiss lenses, but the drawing style / 3D look / beautiful colors usually are. It is hard to say where the depth comes from, but I think it has to do with the combination of optical design that has a bit of natural vignetting. Zeiss lenses have German glass in them, even though most Zeiss lenses are assembled by Cosina in Japan. That German glass is color neutral and is made by the same company that makes optical glass for Leica, Schneider and many others. Others cannot really compete with Germany’s history of glass molding, it is nearly perfect. That alone is what makes Zeiss lenses so special…”

How you can gush about the special depth and 3D pop of the Zeiss 35 ZF.2 and then ridicule others who found and wrote about the same qualities is a bit strange. Seems to me their theory about glass degrading light makes more sense than your random musings about 3D pop coming from uncorrected vignetting and the German history of glass molding. Just saying…

Marco, I did not try to ridicule anyone on microcontrast, 3D feel or colors in the article. Microcontrast exists, but not just because a lens has less optical elements. Images can have a 3-dimensional “look” to them, but that’s a very subjective matter, as some people see it while others don’t. Personally, I believe that depth is added to images using a combination of light, camera to subject distance, aperture / depth of field, composition and natural lens vignetting. Some Zeiss lenses and other glass like Nikkor 55mm f/1.4G have beautiful vignetting that can make an image appear this way and I stated this in my reviews, as you have pointed out. Color neutrality exists – German-made Schott glass is the most color-neutral in the world and it is a well-known fact that if you use a lens with such glass and compare it to any other lens, you will see visible color differences (at the same time, color can be adjusted in post-processing for any combination of lens and camera). More glass does not degrade light or make images appear “flat”. That’s a myth and a lie.

You said: “More glass does not degrade light or make images appear “flat”. That’s a myth and a lie.”

Since when are your musings facts, empirical, or verifiable? In fact, the former head of Nikkor lens assy. Nakamura commented “the lower element primes render depth the best, even at the (trade off) of higher resolution”

Air, like glass, is an electrical insulator (obviously), therefore it is also a ‘capacitor’ — as becomes blindingly obvious during a thunderstorm!

“Electrical” and “optical” are indeed two different things. Optical refers to the electromagnetic spectrum of visible light, in particular: self-propagating, therefore far-field, electromagnetic waves (using the wave model) or photons (using the particle model). The energy of each photon = the Planck constant (h) times the frequency of the photon (f):E = hf = hc/λ, wherec is the speed of light, andλ is the wavelength of the photon.

A static, electric field, does not generate photons, neither does a capacitor. When the electric field strength exceeds the dielectric strength of the insulator, the insulator becomes an electrical conductor. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulator_(electricity)]

For those who believe that it is the capacitance of glass that causes degradation of image quality, you need to fully explain why the metres of thickness of the insulator air, between the subject and the image plane, degrades the image far less than does the small thickness of glass lens elements. Good luck with that because it’s completely the wrong model for explaining optical transmission (or any other type of transmission theory).

Nasim, respectfully, both your satirical article and your comments after are leaving me with concerns, rather than insights. You say you didn’t try to ridicule anyone on these topics, yet regardless of intent you did in fact write an entire lengthy article that served little purpose except to pointedly ridicule Yannick Khong (in particular) for a viewpoint that you yourself acknowledge is subjective. Before you continue with this subject in future articles (which very well may include valid and interesting insights that add to the discussion), I think you need to understand that you are not on a moral high-ground at this point, and you might want to step back and reconsider your course. You are essentially bullying someone for holding beliefs that differ from your own. To make it stranger, as Marco pointed out, you’ve previously discussed the same qualities that Khong (et al.) does, acknowledged that lenses do differ in these qualities, yet attempted to satirize those who prioritize and prize these qualities, and defended your lampooning by suggesting that your ire is directed at the idea of element count and lead content being the source of these qualities. This is clearly disingenuous, since this article’s satirical commentary focused on sarcastically playing up differences in rendering, with the actual contention being that they weren’t truly present, or at least not to a degree you consider significant. That has nothing to do with the source of rendering differences; you are attacking the differences themselves, and those who perceive them. It may not be what you “tried” to do, but it’s what you’ve accomplished here. If it’s truly not what you *wanted* to do, I think you should give some serious consideration to your approach. I expect your reaction will be that I’ve misunderstood you, that it was in fun and your *intent* was good, but everything you’ve so far said leads me to think you’ve misunderstood your own self. You might also say this wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, but the points and terms you focused on made it clear who inspired this, and your commenters recognized it and acknowledged it with what they added to the conversation, even if none of you mentioned him by name.

A couple quick notes on the subject of rendering differences in lenses: 1) When the “cult of microcontrast” ( :) ) speaks of 3D pop, depth, flatness, and so on, what they’re mostly referring to is the ability to convey form, which is a legitimate element of two dimensional imagery. I never see it put this way, but I think it might be the clearest explanation: all lenses render shape, but they differ in the degree to which they render form (and those differences are the bulk of what you’ve spoken of in the past when mentioning the depth and pop you notice in lenses like that Zeiss 35, with vignetting, distortions, and likely other things sometimes contributing). 2) Your overlay comparison between the zoom and prime is actually a really excellent example, but of what Yannick describes, not of the viewpoint your satire intends to promote. If you understand how form differs from shape, and you look for that instead of for vague ideas like “pop,” you can see that the prime in your example is indeed rendering form to a greater degree than the zoom is. (Whether it’s significant is subjective, as you said.) That’s pretty much all Khong contends, regardless of what you think causes it, and you demonstrated that he’s describing a real thing. Think of how an artist would make a pencil drawing of a circle and a sphere. The difference is in the shading that conveys the form required of a sphere. Artists of different shading skill will render spheres that differ in how convincingly they convey three dimensional form through a two dimensional medium. Lenses differ in this regard in a way that is almost identical, but the difference is more subtle.

I think you and Yannick are two people who basically agree on the general substance of the matter, yet you’re separated by disagreement over surrounding details and perceived importance, and perhaps also by a language barrier created by the vague terminology being used to describe subtle things that few ever look for. Such a minute disagreement is nothing to take a mocking tone over. If you will, set aside preconceived notions and imagine, just for a moment, that I might know what I’m talking about, that what I’ve said is true, and that your position on this could be imperfect. If the rendering differences discussed are real, as you’ve previously said they are, and they’re affected by differences in lens design and materials, as you’ve previously suggested and even demonstrated with the examples within this article, then how does the sarcastic, attempted-satirical tone you’ve used to address this topic make you look as both a writer and a voice within the photographic community? What kind of person are you presenting yourself as? That’s not an answer you have to give me, but I hope it’s one you’ll consider and give to yourself. The attitude in this article doesn’t clarify anything, it only adds more noise and division to a community already characterized by those things.

Saturn, first of all, thank you for your feedback and detailed comment that explains your viewpoint, I really appreciate it.

To make it clear, I never said that microcontrast does not exist, or that there is no 3-dimensionality in a photograph. What I specifically highlighted in the article was related to claims that it is the lower element count of lenses, or their lead content that makes images 3-dimensional. Claims that modern lenses are junk based on their element count or glass content is ridiculous to me, plain and simple. And this article was not written by me alone – a number of PL team members looked at images side-by-side and came up with the idea based on what we could not see.

As for the zoom and prime lens differences and presented image samples, they are all a spoof – everything is swapped and changed, and most images were taken by the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR, while others were taken by modern primes that are supposed to yield flat-looking images. Although this is the first time I am revealing this information, I will present this in more detail in an upcoming article to show how easy it is to fool others. So if you thought that a prime rendered better than the zoom, it was actually the other way around.

What creates dimensionality in a photo is not how many lens elements there are in a lens. Light, form, subject, camera to subject distance, aperture, depth of field, camera to background distance, vignetting, composition, colors, saturation, framing, etc – these are some of the main reasons that add to depth or dimensionality in a photograph, not leaded glass vs non-leaded glass or the number of elements in a lens. It is the same discussion of photographer vs gear – those 12 inches behind the camera that truly matter. Is optical formula important? Yes, it is. Are color neutrality and microcontrast of a lens important? You bet. But these are not what make a photo. Unfortunately, some people believe in myths and make wrong choices as a result. We see it in practically every industry – from audiophiles who swear by expensive cables that supposedly make a huge difference in sound, to photographers who believe in magical properties of lenses. Interestingly, they also tend to use the same verbiage such as “depth”, “dimensionality” and “tones” to describe how one piece of gear is so superior compared to another. And yet when challenged to present evidence or scientific data to back up their claims, they struggle.

The above article is a mixture of facts and myths presented for further discussion on the matter. Please don’t think that it is made to show any superiority or higher ground. We just want to present some facts, side-by-side comparisons with commentary and let the audience decide. And if any of our team members are wrong about any of what we say, I will publicly apologize and correct that information. In fact, who knows, maybe this will lead to far more educational content than we had anticipated.

I hope this clarifies things a bit more. If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.

Hi Nasim, I’m glad you said the following in your previous reply “As for the zoom and prime lens differences and presented image samples, they are all a spoof – everything is swapped and changed, and most images were taken by the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR, while others were taken by modern primes that are supposed to yield flat-looking images”, because I was doing A-B comparisons of the full-sized images, and apart from some slight colour and vignetting differences I kept on asking myself “what’s this guy smoking?” I think that this kind of topic is very subjective, much in the same way that the proponents of vinyl records rant on about “the vinyl sound has more depth”. Only scientifically conducted experiments can shed any truth about the subject and would show that there’s a lot of psychology involved in interpreting images. Besides, with the ever-increasing use of Photoshop to produce images that the art-wankers will be satisfied with, any perception of image quality difference is all academic.

Lenses actually do absorb light that’s a well known fact. That why for movies they use transmitences and not apperture for example.

Now modern lenses typically come with modern coatings that greatly reduce that effect. That’s why modern lenses can have more elements and still maintain a good transmitence: the coatings are better.

From my own experience 3D pop comes from a combination of sharpness, micro contrast, colors, light and in focus/out of focus transitions. The lens, format, camera, jpeg/raw processing, and also the screen and viewing distance all participate to the effect.

I have noticed that my oled TV screen does actually make many more image look 3D for examples than my other screens. And I noticed that my work screen are especially bad and would make almost any image look dull.

I experienced that doing post processing can also increase the effect or destroy it. Default rendering of Fuji or Olympus for example tend to flatten pictures and that you can correct that by going through the raw and edit it differently. Fuji or Olympus can make subject pop is there lot of bokeh, but for scene where everything or most things are in focus, their way of rendering jpeg, that tend to try to find details everywhere make the final rendering more graphical, less lifelike and less 3D.

I have noticed that some lenses tend to give more pleasurables pictures than other and some more 3D look than others. That may be subjective but for example in Pentax I clearly notice the difference with FA lenses rendering and DA rendering. FA has less constrast, tend to come with various color aberations and to have a softer rendering. The DA lenses tend to be more constrasty, get more aggressive gradients and to be extremely resistant to flare. While I appreciate the DA flare resistance and the DA constract for landscapes, I tend to prefer overall FA lenses, in particular for portraiture where the rendering of FA lenses tend to please me more.

This pop exist for sure. This pop is influenced by many factors, that for sure too. To a degree the lens is part of the factors. But that’s only one factor. Some old lenses do exhibit it, that for sure again. But that’s not a given for me.

As if modern expensive lenses are worth their cost, well it depend of the criteria. But you can perfectly make great or outstanding photos with quite basic and unexpensive lenses anyway. It is quite true that outside of displaying 100% crop the small differences between lenses is not that obvious and you’d better invest in improving your technique, your eyes, composition, taking more care of where the light does come from… than from taking more perfect gear…

Of course that only a tendancy, it vary from lens to lens. But clearly lenses are not neutral in their rendering. And different people will prefer different type of lenses.

Anyway, for me the difference in appreciation of pop for the same image depend of course of the person itself, we are all different, but also from the viewing conditons and in particular the screen used.

Kudos, Marco, for what strikes me as one of the more balanced and common-sense-founded reactions in this thread. I particularly like the way you stress that perceived image quality is a result of both objective (empirically demonstrable) and subjective qualities (personal preferences and, yes, tastes). And while microcontrast, 3-D pop, depth rendering, or whatever you may want to call it is real, to me at least, people will differ considerably in their perceptions of it.

Personally, I’ve seen or felt I’ve seen it in images rendered by several Pentax-DA lenses, down from the cheapo DA 50mm F1.8 (6 elements), through the DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited (9 elements) to my most expensive lens, the DA 15mm F4 Limited (8 elements). Along with vivid colour rendition and flare resistance, I think it is a highly desirable quality in a lens, even if the lens is not the only factor in achieving it, and I’m perfectly happy to sacrifice some nth-degree corner resolution to get it. And I cannot shake the feeling that these important qualities, in particular microcontrast, are not getting the attention they deserve in traditional laboratory-based lens testing.

3-D pop seems to be more present in my prime lenses, although my DA 10-17mm and 55-300mm zooms (10 and 12 elements, respectively) do a remarkably good job in maintaining at least some of it, while it is virtually absent from my now largely disused 18-55mm kit lens. And I recall laboratory tests slamming the DA 10-17mm as a lackluster lens, and praising the DA 18-55mm as one of the better kit lenses. Go figure. (Yeah, I know there is that thing called sample variation, but still.)

Mohammed, I still haven’t heard from him after his “lollipop from hell” video, where he referred to Sensor Gel Stick. He made some serious accusations on a product he has never touched in his life, so I thought I would be nice to him by sending a product sample. Not a word back. Oh well :)

You should re-read that same thread from all the happy people that have been using the product for years now. That’s in addition to tens of thousands of worldwide customers, camera manufacturers and rental companies using our products and Leica now selling the Sensor Gel Stick in its German retail stores. You should definitely pay a visit when you have a chance.

As for the Sony customer that had the issue, we could not figure out exactly what happened and why the product stuck so hard on his sensor. It looks like he panicked too early and ripped it out, instead of gently moving it to the side and detaching the gel stick. We have seen cases where Sony uses some weird wet cleaning chemical that was incompatible, but nothing that would result in any damage to filter stack coating. I forwarded the customer’s information with photos to our head office in Germany, so I am hoping to hear back from them soon. That’s the first case of incompatibility, so I wonder if the customer simply received a faulty unit.

Still, you have made some serious accusations on a product that you have never touched before and being a Nikon shooter, you should know that the product works wonderfully on all Nikon DSLRs…

You said — Still, you have made some serious accusations on a product that you have never touched before and being a Nikon shooter, you should know that the product works wonderfully on all Nikon DSLRs…

TELL THAT nonsense to the guy who posted pics of his IR pass filter RIPPED off by using that product. …and countless others.

“never touched (this product) before” ????? I also never stuck my HEAD IN THE FIREPLACE either. Your point? You dont have one.

The www is littered with fools who used this absurd product and caused damage.

While this article may be satire and “tongue in cheek” you might be on to something. Been on a zillion forums with “what to take” questions. Going over my old files (mainly slide) the images taken with the lowly 1.8 AI/AIS primes and the even more cheapo 50 1.8D seems to have more “3 D pop” as you describe. Next summer going back to Guatemala to hike in the western highlands and try and do ethnographic documentation of traditional Mayan fiestas/dances and it seems I’m going down to taking 35 and 85 mm primes, the former AIS, the latter AFD. Had considered all sorts of combos – 24-120/ 24-85 and 70-200 etc. etc. but probably will stick with my old out-of-date primes. Thanks for your article.

Gene, old lenses are in no way superior to new lenses. They were made for film, not for a modern flat sensor with a filter stack in front of it, so they perform poorly in the edges of the frame. Modern lenses need more corrective lens elements for two reasons: flatness of the sensor and high sensor resolution that puts more demand on lens sharpness. Put some of that older glass on older camera bodies with less than 24 MP resolution and they do well. Put them on a D810 and shoot a landscape and you will quickly see that they don’t perform. For portraiture, older glass can work well, as long as the sensor does not outresolve the glass.

Modern sensors do not put more demand on lens sharpness. Lens that are 20 or 30 years still out resolve 36MP sensors at least closed down. The result from most lens old and new are really great today.

It is true that old lenses tend to render differently, in particular they have more chromatic aberrations than their modern equivalent. The change in coating and in type of glass used tend to change a bit the colors cast of new lenses vs old lenses. Not better or worse, different.

Depending of the design decision of the lenses, one may be actually sharper than the other on corners and so on or not. Age may be a factor because we couldn’t pixel peep back in time so people where not obsessed with perfect sharpness of small details they could not see in actual prints anyway. Performance wide open on corners was not a priority as anyway already getting the subject in focus was a challenge.

But don’t tell me if you had a 20-30 year old 600 f/4 that the lens wouldn’t be sharp and that it wouldn’t perform well on a D810 (if it is compatible with the mount). Don’t tell me neither that if I buy a modern cheap consumer zoom like a 70-300 or 28-300 that it’ll beat the crap out of an old 70-200 f/2.8 or 300 f/4 prime or even of an high end zoom of with the same range. This isn’t the case at all and we both know it. Sharpness isn’t really about old vs new, it is more about design priorities. Is it convenience of a light small/lens ? Is it ultimate sharpness performance? A mix? Is it a lens optimized for portraiture or on contrary a macro lens?

Is anyway lens sharpness and optical perfection the primary factory for noticably better photos ? I really doubt it as the added sharpness is not visible with the bare eyes in you print bellow 20″x30″ anyway and much larger print look great (even with film) if you don’t stare at the small details from near distance.

Also others factor like shutter speed or AF, light as much more impact on actual sharpness than the lens. Ass some flashes and the photo is much sharper because there more light and a better signal to work with. On a scene with some bokeh, most of the subject is typically out of focus and the sharpness only really is achieved in a very small portion of the scene. Often that’s not even exactly the one you wanted if the subject isn’t static and the focus done manually on tripod as AF isn’t as accurate as one may think.

Reviewers always do their focus manually. And due to field curvature, when they give their corner sharpness figures, they have re-focussed for the corners. People don’t do that in the field and as such don’t really leverage the best out of their gear except when shooting on sturdy tripod, re-focussing for corner and doing focus stacking. Basically nobody does that.

When you buy expensive gear with near perfect performance, you are in the diminushing return case where most of the improvement is not visible most of the time. You may feel this is important, but most people wont notice. In pratice, this isn’t really who has the most modern or old lens that will get the best shot, but the better photographer. Who know his trade better, how to get the best light, the best framing, the best subject etc. And sometime gear imperfection participate to the result. Well used flare make for fantastic photos. Some weird bokeh make for very interresting images. Not perfectly corrected lenses sometime get a different rendering. Soft corner draw the attention to the subject…

The truely great photographer leverage issues of their gear to get even better images.

Nicolas, please note that I specifically pointed out the weakness of the older lenses, which is the corners. This is very evident when testing lenses (and I have done many measurements of old vs new glass). Also, as you have noted, older glass generally does not do well at large apertures and some glass cannot resolve enough detail in the center even when stopped down (rare). If you don’t care about the corners and all you do is portraiture, then old glass can work great. But if you are into landscapes or architecture where critical sharpness is needed across the frame, modern glass is the way to go.

As for testing lenses, I never focus separately for the corners when evaluating lenses. That would not be a good methodology to use, since the tester would have to focus on center, mid-frame and corner areas separately, which would triple the time it takes to test lenses and it would also make lens charts more or less useless, since you would be looking at similar center, mid-frame and corner performance numbers. Focusing in the center reveals field curvature and shows how bad corners get in comparison to other areas.

Reviewers like photozone or dpreview and so on refocus for the borders. I guess the idea is to get the border performance when the subject is actually on the border.

Actually I do think most lenses, even more so primes to be sharp corner to corner when everything is in focus. I mean at f/1.4 if the whole subject isn’t a brick or some flat target to test lens, the whole scene is quite unlikely to be in focus.

For landscapes, lenses are more often used closed down and even more so with prime lenses it is difficult to find a lens, old or new that isn’t sharp corner to corner on that setting. This is not the case of all zooms, but many are sharp enough.

For example myself out of 3 lenses I use the most, I have 2 FA limited lenses. FA31 and FA77. They are from film era and they always give me sharp landscape corner to corner. What? Still they perform better from all my other lenses and that included quite a few modern design both zooms and primes.

Film era, quite small and light, not many lens element, not that well corrected for chromatic aberation but insanely sharp and they do fantastic landscapes.

But I would say almost any lens does a great job for landcapes. There nothing difficult there in term of optics or gear. An entry level camera + kit lens closed down should already give great result, maybe outside of the extreme of the zoom range. But take a cheapo prime for maybe $150 or any medium end zoom and you get very very nice images.

I don’t get your point because it is really hard to find any lens that doesn’t perform for landscapes.

There are enough half and quarter truths in this to make it seem real. You did miss the opportunity to rave about the benefits of lenses with thorium or similar elements (lanthanum)? I am willing to bet there are people who are fans of lenses with glass specially modified to produce high density glass. (After all using a radioactive lense is a small risk surely????:-( With regard to lead …. (I hesitate to mention this in light of the last paragraph) the manufacting process and the by products of working with lead would surely be a major reason for wanting to stop manufacturers using lead. Why didn’t you wait until April 1?

Martin, some of the stated things in the article have some truth to them, while others are completely bogus. For example, lead was indeed used on lenses before and it does have a higher refractive index compared to non-lead glass. However, modern low-dispersion lead-free glass is also excellent in taking care of a lot of lens aberrations, so lead is no longer needed in lens manufacturing. As for other radioactive chemicals used in lenses, I would love to see someone put two lenses side by side and prove that one is better than the other by showing us images.

Lastly, April 1st is too long to wait and after seeing some of our readers point to some articles on the web that give very similar arguments as this piece, we decided to address them through a series of articles.

There are quite a few scientists working in optics that will disagree! Thoriated glass, fluorite, lead glass, all come with certain advantages over normal glass. If you don’t use them, you need to include aspherical glass elements and correct for spherical aberrations, which will greaty deteriorate out of focus rendition and “bokeh” will look ugly/nervous/distracting.

Maeianne, over at the dpreview forums, did a magnificent job investigating many modern vs. old lenses in that regard.

It’s about oof transition as much as bokeh quality, which is of utmost importance in fast primes.

I actually own a Canon FL58/1.2 which is radioactive and compared it to the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 – while the Canon has a very special look due to the high amount of imperfections (which is the reason that I kept it when I left Sony) the Zeiss is the clear winner when it comes to 3D Pop, image quality etc. and the overall better lens. The old Canon lens only shines in dim environments

When I saw the title of this article, I thought “What the heck is this?”

Then I saw your strong call to specifically read also the last paragraph, I realized what this was all about :-)

I’m a pixel-peeper myself and I become almost a little sad when I look at pictures I took just 10-20 years ago. Not to mention those I took in 1971 with my first SLR.

I bought my first digital camera in 1998, a 1.3 MP Agfa ePhoto 1280. As a computer geek since 1983, I quickly realized that digital camera development would go just as fast. The debate about film vs. digital was fierce for many years and did not quite end until 2010. I was (of course) on “the digital side” all the time.

Now I have a Canon EOS 5DsR (51 MP), a TS-E 24 mm, 100-400 mm v2 + other L-optics. I love the development in this area!

I knew something was up when i look at the before and after photo of that tomato. :-P Recently switched to Nikon after a few years with Canon with a D800 and a 85mm F/1.4D. Though bought second hand but are still in excellent condition. Was just looking at how your findings rate the old 85 fairs with the G version.

I am sure the 85 1.4g is sharper, but the D is built better and for portraiture or event work where corners don’t need to be sharp, it is an awesome lens to use. If I need corner performance, I will use either the Zeiss 100mm or the 60mm Nikon. I know you don’t believe in magic, but the Zeiss 100mm f2 does it for me. There is just something about those images it produces.

Thanks for the article, Nasim, it brings many thoughts, since the discussed issues are quite relevant for me now as I have just bought Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 and try to understand what exactly makes me so excited about this lens. It reminds me of a time when I moved from a kit zoom to Nikkor 35mm DX, the difference was very drastic to my eyes.

>”As I will reveal in the upcoming article, the images are reversed :)” You should have mentioned it in the P.S.! The difference is small, but I clearly preferred the first picture, e.g. more pronounced highlights and dots on the tomato, and started reading reviews about this magical zoom! As a side note, a single picture never really shows the difference, only hundreds of personal pictures allow one to draw a line between lens rendering, reality and post processing.

From my many (many!) purchases and rentals of lenses in the past few months, I have concluded that the “3d pop” (a characteristic quite extreme in some Zeiss lenses) is different than “spatial rendition”. Some lenses do indeed render “flat”. Low element count is NOT a guarantee of good spatial rendition though. When I take two identical images of tree branches at a distance, and with one lens I can tell exactly the distance between the branches (front-back) even out of focus, while with the other I can’t, that’s when I know superior spatial rendition. Some call it micro-contrast (I don’t necessarily agree), some call it “3d pop” (that’s different in my experience). It doesn’t happen in all images, but a “flat rendering” lens will do it in most cases. Take for example your test images of the Tamron 15-30. In the image of the valley the flower tops look as if a gigantic glass surface on the top has leveled them, and in the image of the girl among the skyscrapers the girl (and the buildings) look like carton props for a movie set. In other instances of my own photos I saw houses in the background “embedded” in trees in the foreground (though their real distance was 30+ meters), while other lenses rendered them correctly (good spatial rendition) from the same spot/same settings/focal length. In other instances I noticed that in portraits with some lenses the face looked very “anaglyph”, very realistic, compared to others which flattened it (same focal length, settings etc). That has nothing to do with the “3d pop” which, as I said, is mostly a Zeiss result, or a result one can get with other lenses by over-illuminating the main subject. Since spatial rendition was my main priority, I spent a lot of time and money and finalized a lens set for my own needs. Now if you are referring to articles written by Mr. Yannick, although he doesn’t display the proper examples, he’s correct in that some lenses are far superior in spatial rendition than others. He’s also correct about the Zeiss pop, which is known to everyone, but has to do with different tactics in design than just element count. So he argues it’s an element count, but I have noticed that this is not a guarantee. My conclusion is that not many photographers emphasize on spatial rendition, therefore it’s not a major priority for manufacturers, thus one needs to personally test lenses to see what he/she likes better on that aspect.

Lefteris, I find that the term “3D pop” is misused very frequently and heavily varies in meaning from person to person. To me, 3-dimensionality is achieved with a combination of light, camera to subject distance, focal length, selected aperture and resulting depth of field, lens-specific vignetting and other aspects like composition. Add post-processing to the mix and you are dealing with a whole different ballgame. I struggle to see what you see in the images of the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 review. I don’t see a gigantic glass surface on the top of the flowers – they look more or less even, because that’s how they were for the most part. Add some blur due to wind and it adds to the illusion. I am sure that if I shot the same scene with a prime lens, the result would look very similar. As for the girl walking around skyscrapers, I am not sure what you are looking for in such a highly distorted image? How would a different lens with a “3D pop” render that differently? Unless someone specifically showcases drastic differences in images shot side by side, any claim of added depth is either non-existent or purely subjective. And yes, I did have a look at Yannick’s articles and saw none of what he claimed.

Lenses do differ in the way they reproduce color. They differ in resolution, CA, distortion, vignetting, coma and other optical factors. But I struggle to see how a lens can make one perceive images differently just because it has less glass in it. To me, that’s utter nonsense with no scientific proof behind it.

In order to meet the highest demands in relation to optical imaging performance, leaded glass types are extremely important on the basis of their combinations of specific characteristics. Alternative approaches require additional input in terms of more lens elements which leads to a marked competitive disadvantage in relation to competitors who are not bound to RoHS as well as to performance issues. Source

Nobody is disputing that leaded glass has a higher refractive index. But its use is only of importance for high-end industrial equipment, as I have numerously stated above. In fact, the exemption you linked to applies to “in-vitro medical devices, industrial monitoring and control instruments”. Within the actual document, the third paragraph states that leaded lenses are important in the field of “cinematography and aerial applications”. Where are references for consumer-grade lenses? There are none in the document.

Please read the clarification / questions / answers document from RoHS, where it is clearly stated that “in the 1990s all large optical manufacturers introduced lead free glass types with optical properties as close as possible to those of the preceding lead containing glass types. By the end of the 1990s there was hardly any lead containing glass used for consumer optics, which has the largest share of glass usage by far. Nowadays lead containing glasses are used only for cases, where there are no alternatives to achieve the optical performance. This restricts their use to special high end applications.”

In short, we have not seen leaded glass in over 20 years by now on consumer-grade lenses. What Zeiss, Schott and other manufacturers asked from RoHS was an exemption for leaded glass to be used in industrial gear that costs tens of thousands of dollars. That’s basically cine lenses, high-end zoom lenses used in aerial photography, industrial labs, etc. This exemption does not apply to consumer-grade lenses.

Non-leaded glass is not an issue. We have excellent lenses today that have zero lead and yet produce superb results – and that includes Zeiss lenses, so what’s the problem? Are you trying to argue that you can clearly see differences between leaded and non-leaded glass? If yes, please provide proof – I would love to see a Zeiss Otus with an ungodly number of unleaded lens elements put to test against a classic with less leaded lens elements that performs at the same, or better level. If you can provide such comparisons, I would be the first in line to see it.

Nasim, I should be using the term “dimensionality” – the capacity to tell the distance between objects in the pic without effort and to feel a strong dimensional effect. I have found for example mid-range zooms to compress the background, bringing it towards the photographer and diminishing depth. In some Zeiss lenses I have found that dimensionality is so strong that the center subject almost looks “pasted” into the image or “hovering” in the image (an effect which is not always desirable). An example is the first pic (airplane) of some casual vacation pics I took here lefteriskritikakisphoto.blogspot.com/2017/…-post.html notice that although I forgot to refocus the lens when I asked her to come closer, the girl looks as if she’s “hovering” in the pic. All distances between objects are well defined and clear. Strong sense of dimensionality. The effect is even stronger when the center subject is in focus (Zeiss 28). So back home in a controlled backyard environment I took the same pic with the Zeiss 28 distagon and the Zeiss 25 f2 distagon, and the first had a strong dimensional/item separation effect, while the second appeared quite normal. In both cases I put my daughter again closer than the background items, and in the first image she was “hovering” again, while in the second (Zeiss 25) everything looked like a normal photograph. The hovering was so strong in the first, that I thought about NOT keeping the lens, since the result was quite unnatural. That is in contrast to other lenses I’ve tried which, in the case of zoom and wide lenses, compress everything into one plane. I’ve taken pics with 24-70 zooms where a tree 50 meters away looks as if it’s embedded on the same plane with a house that’s 100 meters away (especially with Tamrons and wide zooms). I’m not a Zeiss snob and I would prefer lighter zoom AF lenses (who wouldn’t…), but certain lenses give me this dimensional effect that others don’t. Other people call it “pop” (Zeiss 85, Zeiss 100 Planar Macro – not the Milvus). Other lenses have dimensionality without the “pop” (without the hovering of the closer items), such as the Voigtlander 58 Nokton. Etc etc.

Nasim, I liked your glass-to-air thought experiment the best. That made everything make sense! From the ancient Greeks to Nikola Tesla the time tested thought experiment has been the golden yardstick of science. But Nasim, you got me again. Part way through the early paragraphs I started thinking if I should start buying D lenses! AAACK!!!! When will I learn? Finally, at the end I started wondering if April 1st had come around again and I hadn’t noticed. I haven’t been this taken in since your April Fools article two years ago. The laugh is on me. Well done.

The effect is also demonstrated by a professional Hollywood cinematographerwww.youtube.com/watch…5febma4_OE An effect a little more strong in “pop” combined with good spatial rendition is at 8.47″ ofwww.youtube.com/watch…oearI56ehM While the differences in their results are subtle, in my tests of other lenses they were very visible, in some cases the difference was “wow”, for example, when I tested the current (not the new) Tamron 24-70 vs. two Zeiss primes (the 28 and the 50 macro planar). The rendition of the planar was so unique and dimensional that to this day (I returned the lens) I recognize photos taken with this lens, surprising the owners. The Tamron was rendering very flat, bringing the background as embedded with items in the foreground. As I said above though,

a) “3d pop” is different than spatial rendition (“item separation”). b) Low element count or date of design is NOT a guarantee of good spatial rendition. c) Micro-contrast is necessary regardless, otherwise one wastes his camera resolution. d) Personal tests are far better than general theories on youtube or elsewhere.

Lefteris, please tell me that you are actually seeing drastic differences between those lenses. Aside from differences in bokeh / background blur, color and contrast, I do not see any other differences. In fact, it looks like in the first comparison the scene has more overall light, which is probably because of differences in T-stop between the two lenses (look at the white rod area between the subject’s head and the color chart on the right). Please show me the 3-dimensionality that the cinematographer is pointing to, because I don’t see it. Perhaps differences would be more obvious on a large screen, but at 720p web resolution, it is impossible to tell. The same with other scenes, where I cannot see anything other than perhaps color rendition of lenses, which would vary due to differences in glass molding.

When it comes to testing of zoom lenses vs prime, of course there will be differences. But I think you and I can agree that the differences will have nothing to do with the number of lens elements in a lens. Still, to make your claims valid for other readers, you should be presenting comparisons of lenses tested in identical environments and specifically pointing out the perceived differences. I cannot take the claim that Tamron renders a very flat image without any proof attached to it.

I see a big difference in the above video. Everything the cinematographer describes I can see in the image. It’s as clear as day. I can see it even if i make the video thumbnail sized.

I don’t disbelieve you that you cannot see it, it may come down to differences in what your eyes can see verses mine. There are all sorts of differences in peoples eyes, some are colour blind others may not see spatial tone information the same way.

This discussion reminds of a similar topic in audio world. What produces better sound, a classic vacuum tube or modern transistor based amplifier? ‘Tube heads’ will swear that a tube amp will produce more “liquid” and “3D” sound stage etc and transistors sound sterile and flat. I have owned both types of amplifiers and cannot tell a difference. May be I don’t have golden ears (or golden eye sight in this case)

Actually I do see drastic differences between some lenses in spatial rendition, regardless of technique (regardless of aperture, lighting etc). Though the differences are not too strong between primes, the differences between primes and zooms (with very few exceptions) was indeed dramatic in my tests. This was my goal from the beginning, since I was dissapointed with my then new lens choices. I discovered the advocates (Angry Photographer, Yannick) weeks later and although my results were different in many cases, I used their advice as a more general guide to save some time. When I find the time I’ll create a blog post with examples and send you the address where you can compare pics. My final lens “kit” comprised of lenses that are not always consistent with those supported by advocates of spatial rendition. For example, I found the Zeiss macro 50 vastly superior in that aspect from the distagon 35, and the Nikon 300 f4 (the heavy model with the filter in the middle) as the most “3d” lens of all my lenses, though without the “pop” of the Zeiss. By “pop” I mean this sense that the focused subject jumps out of the image (which is sometimes too much, unnatural, such as in the case of Zeiss 100 macro), while by “spatial rendition” I mean that you can easily separate all items in the image and tell the distances to each other. An extreme test is Tamron 24-70 (the most flat one I tested) vs. Zeiss 80 planar (the most balanced I found). Both spatial rendition and pop are dramatically different. I wish the results were different, because my choices ended up being mostly inconvenient (mostly manual focus primes).

I tried hard but I cannot see any difference but the bokeh and a bit the colour tone. While the Leica bokeh is round and smooth, the bokeh of the Cooke is a octagon. I do not see any differences in 3d or pop. But of course my eyes are not trained to see that. I can look as hard as I want, but the difference between a Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AiS, 50mm f/1.4 AiS, 50mm f/1.8 E, 50mm f/1.8 AF-D and a 50mm f/1.8 AFS at f/2 (f/2.8) is very small. Of course there are differences, some are a bit sharper, some have minor distortions, some have more flares than others, but 3d or pop? Cannot see it. Every lens has its own characteristics. I got a 28mm f/3.5 AiS and a 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S. While the f/2.8 is a bit sharper, the f/3.5 has much less flares with the sun or a bright light in the image. The 35mm f/2 AiS renders a very smooth bokeh, while the bokeh of the 17-35mm f/2.8 at 35mm is not that perfect. The 180mm f/2.8 AF-D and a 80-200mm f/2.8 AFS are different but if it is about 3d or pop the zoom is not worse than the fixed lens.

Thorium is another important radioactive element to add to have 3D pop. Using for 5 minutes every day a vintage lens with thorium inside will helps to see 3D pop easily. I’m waiting for the part 2 of this review :-)

Totally agree Nasim, well noted! I have several radioactive Russian lens from the first and Second World War, but what make me crazy is a triplet lens design like trioplan. But trioplan is a very expensive vintage lens, therefore I modified a triplet lens made for projector (it costs only 20 bucks) to work with my Nikon D700. Here you are a 3D pop with only 3 glass lens designwww.nikonclub.it/galle…2?from=p-r

Luke, those articles are laughable. Can’t believe anyone would believe in such crap. Where is science in any of those bold claims? Such a waste of time! I first saw this link on Fstoppers and I cannot believe I wasted my time reading it.

Nasim, an interesting article. Despite the satirical nature of your article, I am curious by some of your remarks in the comments section.

First, regarding your statement, “To me, 3-dimensionality is achieved with a combination of camera to subject distance, focal length, selected aperture and resulting depth of field, lens-specific vignetting and other aspects like composition.” Ahhh . . . Nasim, what you neglectto mention here is one of the most important (if not the most important) aspect that determines 3-dimensionality of a photograph, namely, the LIGHT!!! I have authored quite a few articles for our Readers on how light determines the 3-dimensional rendering of a subject (in the context of landscape photography). Distance, focal length and aperture pale in comparison to the quality of light (directionality, contrast, and shadows) in creating a 3-D appearance of a photograph.

Second, “old lenses are in no way superior to new lenses. They were made for film, not for a modern flat sensor . . . Put some of that older glass on older camera bodies with less than 24 MP resolution and they do well. Put them on a D810 and shoot a landscape and you will quickly see that they don’t perform.” Nasim, the reason that older lenses appear to render a more 3-dimensional quality to photographs is what you attempted to explain: those lenses were designed for *film*. Film is a medium that records light in three dimensions. Digital, on the other hand, records light in only two dimensions. That represents a *huge* difference with regards to the 3-dimensional rendering of a photograph. In this regard, it is not so much the design of the “old” AF-D and Ais lenses, but rather the nature of the format, that makes a photo appear to “pop”. Further, there is absolutely *nothing* wrong – whatsoever – in using “older lenses” on a modern digital camera to photograph landscapes. Personally, I have used Ais lenses on the D800 to make landscape photographs, and the images look great!! Nasim, I am curious . . . what exactly is your definition of “not performing well”. In my mind, it is the artistic vision, the light, and the skill of the photographer that reign supreme in the making of a photograph – not the camera or the lens.

Further, the statements you set forth in the comments section appear to be predicated on and limited to the narrow scope of the digital sensor format, yet those assumptions do not necessarily apply to the film format, especially as the size of the film format increases (e.g., medium format, large format). All other things being equal, bigger film formats *do* provide a more 3-dimensional rendering to photographs compared to a digital format. In my experience with photographing with digital vs 35mm / medium format / large format, the bigger the format, the more 3-dimensional the rendering, which is not a surprise give that film records light in three dimensions and the bigger formats capture more light.

Finally, regarding your statement that “individuals and websites that post nonsense information about lenses and their “unique” qualities”, I beg to differ. Classic lenses such as the Kodak Commercial Ektar and the Kodak Wide Field Ektar (lenses designed for the 8 x 10 film format) render some of the most true-to-life, distinctive, and 3-dimensional images I have ever seen. Ansel Adams made some of his most brilliant images with the 250mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar (think “Merced River, Cliffs, Autumn”), and Yousef Karsh made some of his most famous images using the 14” Kodak Commercial Ektars (think Winston Churchill). These lenses are relatively simple double gauss and Tessar designs, respectively, but the nature of the format, the size of the format, the manipulation of light by Adams and Karsh, and their craft are the reasons why no modern photographer with the “latest greatest” gear has ever been able to rival the quality of images made by these Masters of Photography.

Nasim, I am curious if your upcoming article will speak to some of these aspects (e.g., the quality of light, the choice of format, and the size of the format) in classic vs modern lenses in creating a 3-dimensional photograph . . .

Rick, always great to hear from you! You are absolutely right, I knew I missed something important in that list (been thinking about lenses way too much!) and light is the #1 factor for sure as you have rightfully pointed out.

As for film being 3-dimensional vs digital being 2-dimensional, is that your personal observation, or a fact based on evidence? Film is obviously not as flat as digital sensor, but I cannot see how it can capture another dimension digital cannot. Please explain – would love to hear more about this. And just because a lens was made for film, I would agree that it can simulate a film “look” on a digital sensor. There are a few reasons why most film lenses don’t do very well on digital, especially at wide apertures: a) 35mm film was not as demanding as digital for resolution / sharpness, b) film is more curved than a flat sensor and lenses were made to match that, c) optics were not as advanced before as they are today.

I do agree with your statement that larger formats capture more light, but that’s not relevant to this particular discussion on older lenses being better than their newer counterparts. As for masters of photography making beautiful images, it is not the gear that made their images beautiful, but their knowledge of light, subject, framing, composition and many other things you have pointed out in your prior articles. If Ansel Adams were alive today, I seriously doubt he would be still shooting with his old gear. I am sure he would be happier with a medium format digital camera + a slew of modern high-quality lenses, in addition to post-processing software like Photoshop. This area is where you and I will most likely disagree, but that’s OK :)

I will be writing an article comparing older glass vs newer glass and if there is any evidence of differences between the two “looks”, I will be happy to document that. Please note that the article will not expand on choice of format, or its size, and I will not be exploring the quality of light either – the idea is to shoot a few different scenes with different lenses and see if there is any drastic difference in the way images are rendered. Also, please note that this is NOT a discussion about 3-dimensionality of a photograph. It is a counter-argument for those who claim that older lenses (such as the Nikkor classics) with less lens elements somehow produce better images with more depth compared to their modern counterparts. Please see the link in comment #27 that will take you to one of the websites that makes such claims. If you see something we don’t see, please let us know!

Sarcasm is a wonderful tool when used well as you bdo here. The up front warning was a bit og a give away but I read the article first. You started with a degree of rationality then went ever more off the wall through the article. Well crafted and spot on. Looking forward to you “regular” articles as you promise.

This article helped pass the time as I sit in the Frankfurt airport waiting for my flight to Chicago. Thank you again.

This must be the biggest BS I have read in the past 2 years probably.. Sorry but it has to be that way, because it is that way.. 99% of your claims are without any proof, the only picture you gave us as the proof ( the tomatos picture) Prime vs zoom, actually the 3D pop effect of the zoom lens looks way better, and the reason behind it, is less saturated colors, less contrast in out of focus areas, more sharpness and more accurate looking WB setting. The “Prime” actually gave more dirty, yellowish looking result and actually that makes me think you edited the prime picture, because the picture made with zoom lens has more natural looking colors and contrast.

Going further, it is natural, that different lenses produce slightly different results, it is truth that they differences occur in the glass element, coatings etc. But one very important thing that gives direct difference to the background rendition was not mentioned, and that really makes me think that this whole write up is just BS.. You havent mention nothing about a aperture mechanism and diafragm blades, witch is the key factor that is responsible for background rendition at various F stop numbers. The old lenses are famous about the complicated aperture that gives the good rendition such as old Zeiss glass, even some Russian copies such as Jupiter 9 or even Helios 40 coupled with unique lens design, that gives the swirly background rendering in out of focus areas.

Now what really create the “3d look” its the DOF separation. How to make it pop more? Add sharpness its the number one way to make a subject pop, thats actually the first step everyonne does in the post processing using separation tools such as brush tool, to add sharpness on the main subject, or the parts that you want to pop out. So how come sharpness is overrated? its not. You can test it yourself – make a 100% sharp image and the one with slightly missed focus, you`ll see the difference. I think the problem in your write up is that you havent really tested a bad old glass witch can not compete with the modern glass in sharpness. Please take an old piece of junk and compare it with the new lenses.. When you see for yourself that there are no difference in sharpness between model shoulder and the model eye then maybe the articles about “3d pop” will change drastically.

Now talking about abberations it is really sad that you talk so bad about the fixes of modern lenses, because in reality without them there wont be nothing.. Once again i encourage you to try out old stuff before critisizing the modern one. there are many good examples of really bad flare issues in the glass, really bad bokeh rendition effects even the so considered “Bokeh monster” Helios 40 is an example of a very bad lens design, because it only has medium sharpness in the center and everything that gets in the corner is blurred to the infinity, you simply cant photograph the group of people with this lens. And looking back there are many many lenses that act that way – poor abberation correction, poor flare resistance, poor sharpness etc…

Now getting back to the other lenses you compared. 58mm 1.2f should have a different paragraph because of the 1.2f and everyone knows that at this setup each 1.2f lens are unique and each one of them will give the different unique look, because there are so little of them, they are expensive, so not everyone use them, and that create unique look in itself because people are not bombarded everyday with the results these lenses provide. Sure 1.2f is special, like any other 1.2f lens, particulary you choosed 58mm 1.2f and even the focal lenght at 1.2f will give the different look to the images, so even if you compare 50mm 1.2f vs 58mm 1.2f the results are pretty different because of the difference in the focal lenght, the same goes if you compare close up shots made with 50mm vs 35mm you will notice the difference 35mm lens gives – it has more cinematic look, more dreamy look as if you can touch the subject right now right here, while the 50mm cant compare with it no matter how you place your subject, its just not the same.

And lastly, do you really really think, that there are hundreds of people working at each company and instead of trying to make the best product possible they actually make wrong moves? The simplest lens design contains 3 elements, do you really think that the hundreds of engineers havent understood the difference between 3 or 5 glass element lenses compared to the one witch has 15? I really doubt it. “5 elements can easy outperforme any modern counterpart in everyway”… So at first you agree that they use different elements to fix the abberations, and at the end you state something like that? Also dont forget the fact, that ~100mm lens is a really easy design compared to the others, try to make a 5 element wide angle lense and even 1.8f witch sigma just did.. Actually there couple of companies who are selling old design lenses made today one of them is Meyer Optik Goerlitz you can check them out and buy their “special” 3 glass element design lenses that havent been upgraded for the past 60 years, and the prices a very “reasonable” featuring no AF systems and only mediocre coatings..

Glass is evil – that is truth. But the things are far more complicated in reality. No doubt – there are only very few examples of superb low-element count lenses that shine on modern cameras. I’ve tested so many “legendary” lenses (Nikkor 180/2.8, Nikkor 50/1.2 etc…) and they are good only when stopped down (at least one full stop) and who needs to shoot wider aperture than let say f2.8 is left with dull, low contrast and soft pictures packed with all types of CA. And the praised saturation of the leaded glass lenses (so perfectly visible with ZEISS lenses – oh yeah, that evil ZEISS) comes to play also after stopping down. Low overall contrast and bad flare resistance ruins saturation with almost every older lens.

Probably you missed the Nasim joke and humour. BTW I have triplet design lens, some old lens with 5 or 6 glass, I have Helios 40-2, Tessar and industar lens, Nikon Ai, and sharpness apart every old lens design has unique rendition. Which one is better? It is only about the personal taste! But this is not what Nasim is pointing in this review. New lenses are far better than old lens design in every aspect (sharpness, contrast, flare, Vignetting and so on). But if you want flare for artistic picture you can take that old lens, if you want swirling take that one, if you want dream and haloes that the second one. But if you want 3D pop adjust lighting position and you have it. Old lens have some bad characteristics and you can take advantages of these defects instead of spend time with photoshop to add flare or vignetting. This is the only advantage. The second advantage is to take a very cheap and small 50mm lens for instance. But at the end of the day I become a collector of old lens spending more money than a single new super lens from Sigma Art lens that uses tons of glass. But please wait for Nasim advice.

Nasim, a really great Post. I totally agree with your thoughts. Please let me ask a question: is there an older Nikkor 28 or 35mm Lens with AF, which also renders with a 3D Pop as presented with the 85mm D or 50mm 1.4D. Thx a lot, best, Michael

Isn’t it funny how reviewers use one or two standalone images in their portfolios as examples of these ‘special lens characteristics’, but never manage to set up a test shot to demonstrate that difference with two or more lenses at identical settings.

Seems to me the best thing for ‘3D Pop’ is low but contrasty light (evening sunshine after rain for example), and proximity to the subject; or a pair of binoculars!

On the other hand, I do hope the new 300/2.8 FL still uses 11 elements in 8 groups as it has for the last 30 years. Something very special in that formulation!

Nasim, while you are on the right way I’d like to mention, that there is still too much glass in front of your sensor… let it breathe and and enjoy the esoteric beauty of undisturbed light rays touching your camera

Dang, that’s actually a great idea! I think if I eat some lead and then breathe into my sensor, the filter stack will become forever leaded. I can see how my images will pop in 3D no matter what glass I attach to my camera! Dang, perhaps my modern lenses won’t be all that bad after this solution.

I have been thinking about this rendition last 3-4 years now. Modern lenses have ugly rendition which I cannot full explain. I think most of it is coming from number of elements. Background bokeh looks ugly, that’s what worries me the most. On the other hand, Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR is a specialty lens, unlike 105mm f2.5 :) And lead is reaalllly bad for environment, so I can understand not to use it in lens elements. Plus, think about people who produce those lead-lens elements.

Hi Nasim, Funny article with a serious undertone and i had to read it carefully to understand it… The way i see it sensor development and lens development have reached a such a high technical level now that in turn we become more interested in the look of a lens. For instance Nikon already made this move with the introduction of the 58mm1.4g lens and While lenses and sensors have become so much better the main platform for exhibition has grown smaller from print to web. We do not need this excellent sharpness for most of our presentations… ( maybe it will change in the next 10 years with large screens)

For all the half-truths and satire of the article – I think the practicality of the article speaks to the lack of vision for many photogs and those viewing their work. A few photogs I follow have talked about the death of the print – where things like micro-contrast really come into play. If most/all of ones images are seen compressed (web versions) and on little screens, then many of the elements that do contribute to a *great* image can be lost. If your frame of reference is primarily images captured on tiny sensors (i.e. cell phones), then you loose many of the variables a great lens/camera can give you. I remember when I finally *got* the benefit of a full frame sensor compared to a smaller one, be it cropped-sensor or smaller. This, for my shooting, is as big a deal as lens choice. But, ultimately it begins and ends with vision. If I don’t know the difference – if I don’t see the difference, then I won’t know what I should be looking for – or how to decide if a given lens/camera is serving my goals. As in most things, the “grey cells” are the most critical variable in the optical chain.

Fun to read an article well written that gives us the opportunity to poke fun at ourselves and those making the products we *have* to have.

One other comment – on the comments. A trend I observe in many people is a lack of confidence about what they are doing. Now, to be sure, it is warranted in many cases. That said, if a person is truly aiming to be their best and most informed and use their tools to their capability, then we should have some confidence about what we are doing. Sure, we are all growing or dying. Either 20 years of real experience or one year of experience repeated 20 years (sadly more common) – but if we know are stuff, then it should be pretty easy to read through an article like this and get it, before the last paragraph. But perhaps many have not shot with older AND newer glass – haven’t gotten a couple of samples of the same lens to critically evaluate to see if it would, or would not, serve their image capturing purpose.

I dream of a world where photogs have invested enough time, energy, and progressive learning to have confidence in their understanding and in the results they get.

No worries, the evaluation of “3D pop” is integrated in their magical one-number score. The magical thing about this score is that it changes in function of who’s looking – if you find “3D pop” important, *that* will weigh more heavily in the final score, but if you’re young and only interested in flat sharpness, *that* will be the dominant factor in the score. Quite clever, really.

Nasim , Great article. I regret having sold by beloved 55mm micro nikkor and the older 105mm f/2.5 lens from the film era. Enjoyed your excursion into quantum physics as well! Can Nikon be persuaded to manufacture prime lenses with the 3D pop? Thanks again for a wonderful article.

Definitely had me fooled for a minute. This is probably because I only shoot with primes, though not because of a philosophy but because quality primes are cheaper than their quality zoom counterparts. And who doesn’t want to hear that old cheap lenses are better, some people like saving some money! :p

Bold! Next time publish it on April 1 though. A lot of people will probably miss that last little paragraph. I bet that the “Angry Photographer” will spend years quoting from your article. We shall see :-)

Of course the old lenses are better: it’s easy to take them apart for the purpose of removing their image-degrading items; whereas my new lenses require a bandsaw, a milling machine, a lathe, and a disc sander.

However, I do understand why some people become strongly attached to their modern plastic lenses: because reassembling them after modification involves superglue.

Hints and Tips To remove the colour-distorting coloured coatings (usually green or purple) from the surfaces of each lens group, I’ve found that tungsten-carbide sanding discs provide a reasonable trade-off between cost, time, and effect. NB: If you use a sanding grade which is too fine then your lens will fail to achieve the beautiful glow and the subtle micro-contrast that you are desperately seeking.

I am eagerly waiting for the followup article with more lense examples. That would help to complete the table Old Prime vs. New Equivalents. This time, I am also expecting similar comparison using Canon lenses too…

You owe me time I have spent formalising arguments against your 3d pop rant. (I am glad I could do it during my work breaks.) I owe you the rare opportunity to improve my feeble knowledge of esoteric subjects in times of raging rationality. (Or is it?) Thx, it was fun.

Max, seriously, Otus? Didn’t you hear the rumor from a reliable source that Zeiss made that line only for use inside sandbags? They are utterly useless lenses made for those with too much money and zero understanding of simple physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity – things that a 3 year old is supposed to know!

Without any lead in them, they should be pretty safe deep down in the muddy lake. Ideally, make sure to put them in sandbags first before letting them devils drown.

@Nasim:”Didn’t you hear the rumor from a reliable source that Zeiss made that line only for use inside sandbags? They are utterly useless lenses made for those with too much money and zero understanding of simple physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity – things that a 3 year old is supposed to know!”

Now I know who said it before,because I have heard it:Angry Photographer!! He,at least,made some eBay used lens sellers to get rid of their stuff easily!

Mr. Nasim: I have been using my really old Nikkor-S.C. Auto 50mm 1.4 (serial number 1501802) since at least 5-6 years and its my favorite lens! I used it on a D80, D200, D300, D300s and now in my D700 (I am about to buy a D2H for fun and collecting)… the flavor, the 3d pop that some old glass give its nothing compared to the newer lenses, as you pointed out. Thank you so much for your great articles! Maybe some day I can translate one from my blog in spanish (papanikonista.wordpress.com) and if you like it you can post it here!

Next Nasim is going to suggest that those $7000-$10,000 European flash packs and heads aren’t worth the thousands of dollars more than “lesser” studio gear made domestically. Surely dropping huge piles of money on sexy looking gear must also produce superior electrons, quality of light, color richness, 3D photons, and aesthetic qualities impossible to obtain otherwise. Right? I’m pretty sure Profoto and Broncolor use lead glass in their flash tubes. That alone is worth $1000 per head. : P

I always knew that there was something with Profoto and Broncolor! Now I know – they definitely use lead in their flashes and that’s the secret recipe for those 3-dimensional photographs. What people don’t understand, is that lead actually causes photons to change – they instantly get boosted with 3D pop. It is a fact: my cat assured me of that last night during the photo shoot.

Nasim mate, don’t scare us like that. Excited to see the article you do up on this! I’m planning to do a comparison for my site too, but don’t have the glass yet so I’ll be very interested in seeing your comparisons.

Thanks Nasim Iam verry happy to hear iam not the only one shooting most of the time with the old primes. Sometime’s i get confused by the large amount of new lenses that nikon and canon makes i have a 16 35 f4 vr wich iam pleased with but i notice that my 28 mm f2,8 is stil the best thing on 3D pop. The 16/35 is not the newest i broke mine when i have it only a year it velt have a feet not even hard. afcourse Nikon made it like new because of there good warranty but iam not happy about most of the build quiality of the newer lenses, and the recycle sign of ten years don’t gave me a good feeling. I think al good photographers have to invest wise. Greetings Bas

Hi Nasim, in the beginning of the web era in the 90’s it was quite early known that most of the readers do not scroll down and only do read the first page. That did not change until today. Most people just read the title and the first paragraphs, some do scroll a bit and only a minority read the full article. I had much fun reading your article and since I own some older lenses such the 55mm f/2.8 AiS (which is really outstanding sharp) I thought, I missed something in all the years. But then I could not really see a difference in the examples provided. Well done!

I’m so sorry to be the one to have to say this but, none of the images posted in the provided samples are exhibiting what we’d call the 3D effect. Granted, many of then them have nice colors, and the cat sure is lovely. Though most of them are either flat, or lacking with respect to the infamous 3D look.

With that said, the so-called 3D look which is sometimes touted as being magical, is not merely a matter of isolating subjects within the focus plane, but more specifically a combination of optical effects that give the illusion of depth to the viewer. To which I’d add, the effect is so subtle, that it is often perceived as a mystery. And in many cases, leaving certain viewers oblivious to its presence. To which I’d add, it is possible that the author may be subject to also.

So Nasim, I guess I have to sell all my M43 lenses/cameras and start over again since they are all less than 10 years old and much to light to have any lead in them. I think I listened to the advice to “get the lead out” too seriously when I sold all my old Nikon glass and cameras (film) as well as those terrible Mamiya lenses that went with the RZ67. Any suggestions for replacement:)

I can sell you a spray with homeopathic concentrations of lead dissolved in high-quality single malt scotch. Apply to the lens just once, et voilà, you’ll be astound of the 3D rendering and massively improved colors!! In case you have problems observing the miraculous improvement, drink the rest of the solution, and the world around you will look 5D(!) and as vibrant as you like. For a mere 150 bucks (shipping not included), all your photographic dreams will come true!

Allan, I heard that they can be pretty expensive in some states. Gladly, we have a breeder right next to where we live and we were able to get the Bengal at a very reasonable price. I have very bad cat allergies and aside from the Bengal and a Siberian, we did not have many other options…

WOW! I really appreciate your article! I am a real lover of older Ai/Ai-s glass (as well as some older vivitars) and it is rare to see people contrasting modern lens designs to the older ones. Keep the old, all meta, character lenses alive. Thanks for the wonderful article!

I scrolled through the article mostly just looking at the pictures and reading their captions, thinking to myself “what nonsense that the old lenses look that much better”. Then again, after having to hear again and again about this “3D rendering” and “pop” on digital photography fora without a single iota of proof, I thought “Maybe I’m biased? Nasim normally knows what he’s talking about…”. So glad, I was, to read that final paragraph! Now of course I’ll go back and read the entire text. And bookmark your article for future reference…

completely agree.. I started loving my nikkor serie-E lenses a couple years ago, and happily shoot with it until now..

Have you tried some chinese lenses like the zhongyi.. I tried their creator series (the 35/2 and 85/2) and find the character are quite “amusing” (and they’re cheap). Their design might come from some classical lenses design (maybe, just a guess.. I am no glass scientist) :D Love the article!

Great interesting article. I look at the pictures before I read articles. After looking at them I thought wthat they were stacked, blended or merged. I can so see what you mean when you talk of pop or 3 d. However when I walk about in my life nothing I see pops out like this. I do like the pictures they are amazing, but they are a particular type of style that I am not a great fan of. You either like them or dont.

Having tried many lenses that are recommended for this 3D pop microcontrast tonality etc stuff, I have concluded the following: 1. Microcontrast does exist, however not everyone sees it. Some older lenses render colour and details in different ways, which sometimes do show finer details. Modern lenses however are just as capable. They may seem a bit flat, but post processing is a great skill. 2. 3D pop/tonality etc. This is a combination of in/out of focus elements, vignetting, perspective distortion and spherical aberration. Some lenses produce very attractive vignetting, such as the 35/2 Zeiss Planar wide open, which I agree does make the image “pop” out. 3. Many of these lenses are really good. The 58/1.2 Noct, the 55/1.2, that 55 micro-nikkor… etc. It’s only good if one knows how to use it. Nikon’s 3 f1.2 lenses are a pain to MF wide open, I often need to take a 3~5 shot focus bracket. The 58/1.4 Voigt Nokton usually requires 2.

Nasim, Great satire. I have to agree too much is being made of ephemeral properties of old lenses.

The one thing the comments to this article has proved is that modern psychotropic drugs are not working as well as they should, or perhaps some of the commenters are not using them as directed. Anyway I enjoyed the article.

Hey, you are using some of my favorite lenses!! I still shoot with 85mm f/1.4D, 55mm f/2.8micro & 105mm f/2.5. They were very artful on my D700 and now using them on D500 too. The 105mm was the first additional lens I bought for my FM in the 70’s.

I recently did a test between 35mm f/1.4(AIS) & 35mm f/1.4G wide open at dusk and I couldn’t believe the contrast difference. (with the new lens being the superior one).

Nasim, From my experience, after purchasing first the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art and the Carl Zeiss 35mm f2 (both lenses bought after reading your excellent reviews), I can say that those two lenses produce images that have NOTHING in common (aside from field of view). I am no expert in lens design, but there is something that gives the images of the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art lens muddy colors and FLAT rendering that made me sell it asap. (by comparison to the Zeiss, of course). I have been following photography life for some years now as well as having subscribed to the Angry Photographer’s youtube channel less than 2 years and I can say there is value everywhere! But this article brings nothing but more controversy in the photography arena that needs no more. And yes … I am one of those fools that can see micro contrast in photos and perceive it as three dimensional. I am awaiting the part 2 of this article but my experience speaks for its self. Respectfully, Valentin

Valentin, hope you will enjoy the articles that are coming up :) While some lenses do render images differently that might appear more “flat”, it has nothing to do with the lens element count or its glass content. If that was the case, then all Zeiss Otus lenses would only yield flat-looking images…

Roger, always great to hear from you my friend! Glad you’ve enjoyed the article – I will be expanding on it in the next few weeks with some fun side-by-side comparisons. I hope things are going well, please send our warmest regards to the team.

Wow, my two favourite bloggers on the same thread! It is so good that people are being a little more sensible about science. Roger, I love your techie articles and did buy the Nikkor 70-200 F2.8F because of what you and Nasim said about it. It is really as good as the reviews said it was.

That said, I did some consulting at a company that has a 1MeV proton beam, Perhaps we could make some lead in one of the newer lenses giving it that old “je ne sais pas?” with a spallation reaction?

Nasim, thanks for the fun read…. I don’t know about some of the comments, but then it is the internet

Hi Nasim: The Nikon 24-120G lens seems like a very useful “Swiss army knife” lens as Ming Thein described it. Some owners have claimed that DXO’s lens correction profile for that lens is especially effective and greatly improves its performance. How much do you think really good specific lens correction profiles and deconvolution can improve final optical performance in addition to the actual parameters such as number and type of elements and type of glass? Thanks for your many interesting articles.

Nasim and his team have challenged/seriously questioned angry photographer’s point of views.Now the batlle turns to be a real war and dusts are scattered through air.Waiting for further clarifications,because that person in his series of youtubes that have been published today,in several occasions attacked/insulted Nasim’s saying:“More glass does not degrade light or make images appear “flat”. That’s a myth and a lie.” This is sadly unbelievable to see that logical thoughts, sensible manner, and sophisticated knowledge cannot actually shed some lights on hoax these days.May I suggest you to publish some online videos?Most poeple tend to watch hoax and believe it,rather spend time to read,digest,and understand!

I checked the website of one of the “micro contrast” gurus and, yes there were some very subtle differences in local contrast in his old vs. modern lens photos… visible after you look back and forth at least five times… equivalent to maybe two or three units of Lightroom’s clarity adjustment? At least he admits sharpness is far better in modern lenses!

I’d say, let’s give them full credit so we can get a better selling price for our old lenses.

I did think it had to be satirical as I was reading, but the difficulty is that 3D pop does have some existence although difficult to pin down. Nevertheless…

I’ve seen zeiss pics for a lens famous for its microcontrast (I don’t remember which) that had two things going on: the subject against a heavily blurred out background but no continuity with it (ie, continuity would be if you could see their legs and the ground and then blur progressively increasing behind them) along with the 3D pop. It was a highly jarring effect, and one that has lead me to avoid microcontrasty lenses. The subject looked divorced from the blurred background, almost like it was fake. No thanks!

The only time I can see this being advantageous is for when the whole scene is in focus. Then maybe it adds something.

As a man who for years strove to excel at his trade using fixed focal length fast lenses on 35mm film, I am suspicious! There is the argument, which is not at all satirical, just invalid, and there is the failure to take zoom lenses into account, when many modern designs produce better results than the fixed focal lenses they replace: but not only that. There is the PROMOTION of the fixed focal length lens, which now is marketed at revolting prices relative to their true worth- their usefulness!

A zoom lens is so much more useful. It forgoes the fixed terms dictated by a fixed focal length lens (FFLL from now on-its too long!), and gives us all a freedom we never had before, but the AF-Zoom is even more radical an approach to imaging as it allows the recording of what you see AS YOU SEE IT and FROM WHERE YOU ARE.

Now, children, let me explain this If you are A and you see B, the zoom films B as you see it, from your point of view of CHOICE, where light colour and your position CAUSE you to want to film at all. For you can zoom to frame your snap. But the lame. blind man with his 50mm, or 35mm f1.4 on his M10 what he has paid £9,000 to OWN, cannot do this at all, because he, being too far away sees the shot, but the poor fellow (which you can bet he is when the lens alone is ten times the price it was last time I bought one) to get to the heart of the action has to ENTER HIS SHOT to get close enough for the image to be big enough, or alternatively retreat to be able to GET IT ALL IN, ok?

Now Children, what ARE the consequences of this. Well, first of all he has completely destroyed lighting perspective, parallax and its consequences, as well as the image he first saw, whilst little daft old me stays where he is, because where I is is where I’s at, where my eyes at and where IT’s at where IT is the image, and I just zoom in or out before the wee laddie ruins my shot by walking into it! And before the moments I want are forever LOST.

And, if you disagree or dislike what I have to say, try watching sport on TV shot through a single fixed focal length lens from ANY position at all, or check out Cartier-Bresson’s work, as the best example of the wee laddie wi his Leica (and yes, I was one!). His first decades work was not ever improved upon, because subsequently he repeated himself indefinitely in different places for the next 50 years. Now, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that per se, but, in limiting himself in equipment he limited himself in his results, addicted to his fix!!!

The content of the article had a bit of the hyperbolic hysterics I don’t appreciate in other photographers. Nassim, if you are concerned that photographers spread misinformation, this article should have reflected your concern, not your cynicism. You are better than this, and Photography Life is better than this.

My personal opinion: there is a man who is ill in his head, and has a loud mouth. Don’t make fun of him. Show compassion and spread valuable information, not ridicule.

QUOTE from the latter reference: The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.

As per Monty Python ‘There’s just no pleasing some people’! Seriously, sharpness can be always be selectively removed in editing but it can’t be added. I’d rather have a sharp image to work with in the first place than the other way round.

The author here actually has some valid points but has mixed in so much other muck it’s difficult to want to agree with him.

It’s a fact of optical engineering that the more surfaces light has to go through the more contrast is degraded. Hacks like low density glass can help, but it’s a simple case of physics that a lens with 7 elements is going to have less of a problem with contrast and split pairs than an 18 element lens. It’s far easier to engineer sharpness than it is contrast. That’s why some of those classic Zeiss lenses din’t need uber exotic triple japanese coatings because they were so simply optically some light flare didn’t matter.

It’s also true that modern APC lenses aren’t designed to maintain super high levels of contrast like they used to. As long as the lens performs decently in terms of split pair contrast resolution the rest can be adjusted for in terms of digital processing. Sharpness sells lenses noe Nobody shoots VPS III anymore and argues it’s a better film at ISO 80 than it’s rated 160.

The 85mm, 105mm and 180mm Nikons are some of the best performing lenses in terms of both sharpness and contrast *ever* made. Back in the days when commercial shooters were limited 200 and maybe 400 ISO max with transparency film you needed every photon you could get. I remember buying a Vivitar series 1 70-210 3.5 zoom (at the time one of the best regarded zooms on the market) and images produced by that lens at ideal settings looked muddy compared to the fixed Nikon primes above. I’ve see veteran press photographers produce astonishing images with those classic fixed primes under lighting conditions nobody would dreamed you shoot in.

Zooms have com a long way since my Series 1. Especially in terms of dealing with APS-C format and other issues like microlenses on digital sensors. Do they match the fixed prime legends in terms of contrast? No. I just wish we could see more practical examples and have less hyperbole. The classic fixed primes are going to produce outstanding images under moderate contrast lighting. The question is how good are modern zooms, and unfortunately everybody is so obsessed with sharpness it’s not being discussed.

“It’s a fact of optical engineering that the more surfaces light has to go through the more contrast is degraded.”

The AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR and the 500mm f/4E FL ED VR are superb lenses in terms of both contrast and sharpness [see the reviews below and look at the MTF charts]. Both lenses have 16 elements in 12 groups. [https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8e-vr] [https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-500mm-f4e-vr]

“The 85mm, 105mm and 180mm Nikons are some of the best performing lenses in terms of both sharpness and contrast *ever* made.”

Both the contrast and the sharpness of the NIKKOR 180mm f/2.8 IF-ED are poor in comparison with the above, despite this lens having half the number of elements (8) and half the number of groups (6). [https://photographylife.com/lenses/nikon-af-nikkor-180mm-f2-8d-if-ed]

Your statements are “alternative facts”.

CONTRAST Old medium-contrast lenses produce very high contrast when using transparency film, for a very simple reason: the recording exposure contrast range (H) of colour transparency film is only 4—6 f-stops; which after development produces a reproduction density range (D) of 8—12 f-stops. In other words, transparency film has a gamma approaching 2.0. See the FUJICHROME Velvia RVP50 datasheet, section 19: D-H characteristic curves.

Modern high-performance camera sensors have a recording photographic dynamic range of circa 10 f-stops: easily capable of revealing the contrast difference between old medium-contrast lenses and state-of-the-art modern high-contrast lenses.

SHARPNESS The MTF of Velvia RVP50 drops to 50% of its maximum in the region of 40 cycles/mm: circa 1,000 line-pairs per 24mm picture height on 135 format film / FX format digital. This is equivalent to the diffraction caused by using an f-number of 16. Cameras such as the Nikon D800 series achieve approximately double those numbers of cycles/mm and line-pairs per picture height at the same MTF.

However, sharpness is not resolution. Sharpness is a subjective parameter (hence the word ends in “ness”, as does the word “brightness”). A transparency film looks bitingly sharp because it has a gamma approaching 2.0, which drastically increases its acutance. Whereas resolution is an objective measure that is unaffected by the gamma of the recording and reproduction chain. Human vision is acutely sensitive to contrast only at mid-range angular frequencies (circa 5–10 cycles per degree); it is much less sensitive to low and high angular frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS Colour transparency film used with a medium-resolution, medium-contrast lens will look much sharper than will a digital image that has captured a much wider scene contrast range (H), at a much higher resolution, using modern equipment.

The advantages of modern high-contrast, high-resolution, equipment become obvious when the photographer is in need of producing large prints that will be viewed from a close distance. The advantages are also completely obvious to photographers who’s specialism is industrial photography.

You wrote: “Zooms have come a long way since my Series 1. Especially in terms of dealing with APS-C format and other issues like microlenses on digital sensors. Do they match the fixed prime legends in terms of contrast? No. I just wish we could see more practical examples and have less hyperbole. The classic fixed primes are going to produce outstanding images under moderate contrast lighting. The question is how good are modern zooms, and unfortunately everybody is so obsessed with sharpness it’s not being discussed.”

Considering the numerous “alternative facts” contained within your comment — none of which were backed by even a shred of independently-verifiable empirical evidence — I shall leave you to ponder Hitchens’s epistemological razor:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens.

I love shooting 50mm so I bought the F1.8G to replace my D but I’ve still held on to my D because it has a certain neutrality to it’s images while the G looks like it has slightly enhanced contrast. The G is much more practical though. I’d buy the 58mm F1.4 if I could afford it.

I read a comment (from a Canon engineer I think) quoted in dpreview – something to the effect of “pictures that look more like photographs than digital images”. My D lens takes images that look like photographs while the G takes digital images.

I will say that I am surprised to read an article like this on this website. However, to make assertions that older lenses are garbage compared to newer designs is just ridiculous. Ansel Adams used older lenses and his images are pretty fantastic and sharp if I must say so myself. If Ansel adams was still with us and if he used his older equipment from the 30’s and 40’s he would still outperform the majority of photographers and their newer equipment, trust me.

IME I have noticed that the older Nikkor lenses do render differently than newer lenses. I have noticed a huge difference in clarity when comparing my 70 200 2.8 to my 60mm micro 2.8. There is no denying it. One of these lenses has a lot fewer elements in it. Thats not saying that the 70 to 200 is not a great lens.

Also, who prints anything without cropping. I cannot remember printing anything edge to edge ever. The most important part of a lens is its center sharpness. Any professional photographer knows this. Many older lenses have excellent center sharpness. IME, the only thing the truly great lenses offer are less limitations and they are usually built better as they should be. Many lenses will make great images. It is getting know the limitations of the lens and working within the limits of it. The illusion that a certain lens will make you a better photographer is just pathetic. Great lens designs like Nikons 14-24 2.8 have less limitations and perform very well to the point that anyone could make sharp photographs with it. Also, it really is the photographer as I tried to elude to earlier. The illusion that a certain lens will make you better photographer is ridiculous. A great photographer could use an older lens design and make amazing images with it. One thing I like about the older lenses is the coatings they used. It seems like many of the newer lens designs just do not render images the way I like. They seem somewhat dull compared to the older designs. Hey thats just me. However, you can make adjustments with software. To my eyes the Canon lenses render more like the older Nikkor lenses. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that new lenses suck. Far from it. After viewing the angry photographer a moment ago, he does not say that all new lenses are garbage. I have seen him praise the new Nikkor 70-200 2.8. as well as the 14-24, the 20 1.8 prime amongst others. I think what he is trying to say is you can get an awful lot of performance from older designs and I would have to agree with that. There is an awfully famous landscape photographer that made many great images with the nikkor 24 2.8 and all of its so called flaws concerning corner sharpness.

Hi, I liked this article and it actually answered something that’s been bothering me. I recently watch a video;youtu.be/1YbbmS-h0tE; of Terry Whites trip to Iceland. It was a great movie shot in 4k. But I started to notice after a while the sharpness of the movie wasn’t as pleasing as I expected such wonderful scenery to be. I think you article nails it. I’ve also noticed this effect using my new D7200 with the 18-140mm kit lens and compared this to images taken with my D50 and 18-55 kit lens. I can see where sharpness is very important for some things, but maybe not everything. Cheers.

I have to admit that many times I will pick up my 55mm f/1.2 Nikon lens purely because it isn’t very sharp, so satire can kind of be real life for me I guess. It does seem to have a very unique quality to me, but that’s probably because no one else is crazy enough to shoot at f/1.2. :)

Nasim, I don’t think you gave enough credit to the cat in your article. Beautiful cat. I think the cat would make any photo pop. Maybe I should trade one of my lenses for a Bengal cat to get better pictures.

QUOTE from the Wikipedia article entitled Reductio ad absurdum In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”; or argumentum ad absurdum, “argument to absurdity”) is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics (Greek: ἡ Εις άτοπον απαγωγή, translit. hê eis atopon apagôgê, lit. ‘reduction to the impossible’),[2] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…d_absurdum

Enjoyed reading this article because it’s so timely for the transition that I’m going through right now. I started out with Nikon over ten years ago and went to the Olympus FT system a few years back. Now I’ve sold all of that in favor with a Pentax K3 and some classic M42 screwmount adapted lenses. I’ve so far picked up an SMC Takumar 135mm 3.5 and an SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 (radioactive?!, LOL). Waiting for the adapter now. The amazing color and tone rendition of these lenses are unmatched by anything I’ve seen that’s a modern lens and they’re crazy sharp too! Am scouring eBay to pick up some more of these gems. What’s amazing is I picked up both of these lenses for under $100 a piece and they’re in excellent condition and completely functional.

Nasim, thanks for your PERFECT mix of sarcasm- knowledge of the subject- general culture. Your citation of Tesla is a masterpiece: poor old Tesla is the rage now, in Italy at least, they depict him like Nostradamus, a good friend of alien invaders and the inventor of every type of death ray…May I humbly suggest int the next article you put some reference to quantum-something, another click-bait subject!

In my experience (I’m 66) photography has always been a hunting field for self-appointed gurus. I remember the holy war about superiority of slide film in 3d and chromatic fidelity vs the negative film – nobody ever explaining to the crowds of believers that slides were almost ALWAYS taken under-exposed of at least half stop (but often1 or more) to increase saturation, and that a projection on a 2 square meter silver screen with a halogen projector could not be compared to a 10×15 crappy print from the “one-hour lab”… Another “truth” you should rant about in some next article (it was only quicky cited in this discussion) is the “superiority of the human eye”. Indeed. We see mostly in low-res, below relatively high levels of light we become color-blind, and almost EVERYTHING we think to see is in fact heavily “photoshopped” by our brain (memories, expectations, hopes). If reviewed on DPReview our visual gear would not score half a star…:-D

Thanks for your intelligent provocation, it was a delightful reading. By the way, we have a comic character in our TV that closely resembles Angry Photographer – he plays the role of the always-suspecting Web hater and nicknames himself Napalm51.

Nasim, you are still in my favorites list as Mansurovs, fyi. So, I read your article a few days ago, funny. And then I watched about 10 thousand minutes of video from the Angry Photographer, had never seen him before, I was entertained for sure. …and curious. So I pulled an old Nikon off my camera museum shelf, took the E Series 50-1.8 off and put it on my D610. I had a trip planned to the Museum of Flight, started photographing with that E-Series 50 on my FX… and I was totally enthralled. I have not had that much fun making photos in a long time. Three hours felt like three minutes. I really liked that lens in that situation, and planned to work on some portraits with it and see how I liked it in that situation. Today, 14 month old boy, photo session in a park by a lake. Right hand: D4+50mm f/1.8 G. Around neck, ready to go, D610+E-Series50. Set…go! I was running around, laying down, climbing on play-sets, working on string theory to figure out which direction he was going to run next. At the end of the session, my shoes were wet, my shirt sweaty, my brain on limp function. Not one image on the 610+50e-series. Not even an attempt to make a picture with the 50e-series. Ha, no time at all for manual focus. None. Less than none. I hit the home runs I needed to hit in our session, and no one will know how many strike outs I deleted (probably some sort of record in missed focus images). The little boy was super sweet, cute, happy, and as a photographer I captured that. The success came with 1) people skills, 2) enough camera/lens/light chops to have an effective plan B, C, D, E, F and G, and 3) tall iced coffee before session. I had fun photographing, got a workout, and the little guy’s dad gave me a $20 tip!

I believe that the photography landscape is wide enough for housing an equally wide audience with their preferences, believers etc. I am looking forward to the forthcoming article to convince me, or not. It does not really matter to me. But, in the meantime i really enjoy testing the Voigtlander NOKTON SL-II-S 1.4 (which by weight and sturdiness must have lots of lead inside, hopefully) and comparing it to my plastic-fantastic AF-S 50mm 1.8 and other Nikkor lenses. So far, the Voigt beats all of them, at least with a great margin of fun. So i am curious to read if you publish an article, but i rather see no arguing nor proof bij technical means. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that is where the manual Voigt shines. Which is really a pleasant surprise for me, and hopefully others. Different people, different tastes. That makes photography life interesting. Cheers! Keep up the very good work by testing, but nobody is the best for everybody.

At first, I was impressed with this article, and I ended up ordering a used copy of Nikon 50mm 1.4D. On my Nikon D810, it was no way near to the so called modern lenses in sharpness, whether wide open or stopped down. I couldn’t get images that were acceptable or could satisfy my taste. Autofocus was noise, mounting the lens sounded creaky, most part of the pics looked hazy etc. If you think that only trashing a lens would cause risk of “lead” leak, then you are wrong. We may not trash a lens in its lifetime. Having said that, if the lens is damaged, we end up trashing it. No second thought about it. Right? Lead is dangerous, and it’s usage should be banned/avoided. Creativity is an art. We need to find ways to become more creative by using the modern lenses. Bygones are bygones. Like how we like 4k videos compared to Full HD or 720p, there is no going back to older lenses which has less sharpness and less resolving power. The 3D pop could be still be achieved with better techniques, color contrast etc. Bottom line is, our eyes got used to seeing this “crazy” sharpness, and we would never compromise with images that lack the sharpness and resolving power. We need to move on. Every lens review (even yours) begins with sharpness test! We needn’t be sarcastic about it anymore. I would appreciate if you could come up with articles suggesting techniques to better leverage the modern equipment.

Jwala, are you joking or are you being serious? I am not sure I understand your message, but if you ended up buying an old lens thinking that it is better based on the article, then you clearly did not read the article. It was sarcasm, a complete joke. In fact, all images are reversed – it was a lie to say that older lenses were somehow better…

(I intended to reply to your response much earlier, but the Captcha problems stopped me from posting it) Lol! Indeed, I took your article seriously. I bought 50 1.4D and ended up returning it! Only then i realized the intent of this article! I don’t regret though! I enjoy your blog and find most articles useful.

This has been one of the most entertaining threads ever. When I started photography last year, I was enthralled with one of the Kens, read everything he had to say, including his extolling of older, AI and AI-S lenses, so I bought one to go with my shiny new D7100. Yes, it produced some nice images, but manual focus, flare etc, yikes. I bought a 50mm 1.8G; after hours of comparing photos, I noticed minimal differences, and they were not worth the hassle of focusing. My keeper rate is so much higher with the new ‘plastic’ G. To top it all off, all of the lenses that rich Ken and crazy Ken love are OLD, and getting older all the time. They are subject to separation, dust, oil on the blades (what did in my 50mm 1.4 AI-S). I read reviews now with 2 grains of salt, and was very entertained by this one, although a bit taken aback until the end. Crazy Ken lost me when I realized all he does is rant and swear; no tests, no images, just attitude; really, I suspect he has bought up or has many old lenses he needs to sell, and just brags up whatever he needs to sell. Rich Ken’s advice is hit and miss; ultimately his needs are radically different from hobby photographers that his advice needs to be parsed carefully. I have gotten much more useful info from this site, specifically Nasim’s articles.

Dear Nasim, why do you think that directors of photography still use vintage lens like Angenieux, Kowa, Hawk V-Lite, Zeiss primes or anamorphic primo from Panavision in their blockbusters? Do you think they are stupid? And do you think that Christopher Nolan was stupid too, when he pretended that film stock is far superior in color depth and color rendition than digital sensors? Have you seen any of these movies shot on film, in cinema? Colors look 1000 times better than in digitally shot movies. They have deeper tones, color contrast and other specific characteristics that digital cannot achieve. Don’t forget that photography is the poor relative of cinematography… For example, poor little Adobe kids, Lightroom or Photoshop will never be able to compete with powerful color grading systems like DaVinci Resolve. :)

Loved the article! Finally picking at the angry photographer school bullshit, I was starting to get worried about how much people are buying into his crap. Like according to him, photography has an ancient mystical secret and somehow despite being a multi-billion business and related to scientific equipment all engineers have forgotten to make good lens… give me a break.

However, I can see that the MTF curves somehow are not really predictive of the quality of a lens. My Nikon 18-55mm VR II it’s supposed to have an impressive MTF curve despite being a dirt cheap kit lens, however when compared to my waaaay more expensive 16-80mm f2.8-4 there are galaxies of difference (As I bloody expect for the price). That’s not something I would predict just by looking at the MTFs… Maybe I just don’t fully understand MTFs

Micro contrast is an acquired taste, I say. Not everyone can see it, some can feel it, very little know it. It’s like listening to a piece of music played on a tube amplifier. Micro contrast is like well aged wine or cognac mellowed with the passage of time. It’s like umami that makes the food so tasty you love it but cannot explain it. We are living in era and generation of people with ear phones listening to music played on smart phones i pods , mp3 players. Smart phone generation are not able to see it and may never be will as many have never used a film or seen a film or transparency let alone medium or large format view cameras.

The look of a well exposed transparency or a well made silver print cannot be explained it can only be felt. In this era monitors have killed the Ciba chrome and transparency look and feel. We forget that 90% of the photos are viewed on 4 or 5 inch phone screen or lap top monitors. The real photos to study micro contrast and 3 D pop are shot on large or medium format cameras. Larger film and less degree of enlargement shows more of it.

All LF/MF, TLR lenses were kind of symmetrical, half the lens was behind the shutter, cameras moved the lens on bellows to focus this kept the look /feel and sharpness, unlike zooms and modern lens where many elements are moved internally back and forth to achieve focus and zoom.

I would like to add that modern and specially 35mm SLR lens design have also lessened the 3 d pop effect. Putting the mirror behind the lens , and shifting all the elements to the front , changed everything. Lens designers also had to work harder to keep the feel of the lenses. Adding salt to wound some older lens glass materials and coatings are no longer used and are considered a security threat for being radioactive.

Leica is considered to have 3 d pop or Leica look., Japanese, Russian range finders had similer look. All there lenses simpler design and low element count and are very close to the film plane. Ever wonder that most of the revered leicas were all range finders with lenses are like f2 to f4. Leica did not gain much appreciation in SLR , and i have never heard of and medium and large format from them either.

Forgotten, mainly because its chosen solution was rendered redundant by the deployment of cams. The article, to which you provided two links, contains factual errors: as pointed out by commentators on the two websites.

As to the rest of your comment: it seems that you did not read the whole of Nasim’s article; neither did you read the comments, including mine, before you posted your comment.

Hi Nasim I use Sony a 7ii and with my old lens from Nikon d5100. The first len I bought on Sony system are zeiss 55 1.8 and I was stunned by the “3D pop” contrast , saturation everything it delivered . At first I thought that the meaning of “pop” is only background blur so I guessed my excellent nikon 85 1.8 G should have more subject isolation than the zeiss 55 1.8 So I test the same composition between these two lens and found the zeiss was the winner ! I do not understand and very confused ! Why Sony zeiss can beat 85 1.8 in term of 3 D effect , background blur ? Or may be the background blur between 85 and 55 did not significantly different so I did not see it ? I want to buy another 85 or 100+ focal length as my ultimate portrait len but I cannot decided. Right now my gf was in love with photos taken by zeiss , should I continue to stay royal to zeiss or just bought Sony 85 1.4 G (which is $$$) or sigma 135 f 1.8 or nikon 105 f 1.4($$$$$$) or baits 85 1.8 ? (Ps I have commolite adaptor to use autofocus nikon len on Sony ) my gf did not allowed me to buy manual lens because she want me to take a lot of candid shot which I found difficult using manual lens . Thanks

I did not understand why “zeiss ” can produce such image , should I invest in zeiss ?

I’ve written the following just in case your comment is serious, rather than a spoof written in the spirit of Nasim’s article…

You wrote: “So I test the same composition between these two lens and found the zeiss was the winner !”

It is impossible to obtain the same composition of a scene, when using both a 55 mm lens and an 85 mm lens, without cropping the image from the 55 mm lens — unless the scene is a flat wall, a test chart, or some other 2D object! The position and alignment of the lens entrance pupil in the 3D object space of our real-world determines the perspective of the scene; the lens focal length and sensor size determine the imaging scale [object-to-image magnification ratio] and angle of view; and the diameter of the lens entrance pupil, combined with the viewing conditions of the final image, determines the depth of field.

The best way to illustrate a point is by using extreme examples. Suppose you photograph a person’s face and head using, firstly, a 20 mm lens; secondly, using a 2000 mm lens from circa 100 times the distance in order to obtain the same framing of the person’s head. Which of those images do you think will have the most ‘3D pop’?

The image from the 20 mm lens will depict the person as having a large nose and small ears, and they won’t thank you for doing that! Yes, the first image has a huge ‘3D pop’ due to its close perspective, not due to the lens itself. The second image will not have ‘3D pop’ due to its distant perspective, not due to the lens itself.

You mentioned taking portraits, hence my extreme example above. Hopefully, I have helped you to understand why a 55 mm lens will always yield a greater 3D effect than an 85 mm lens, irrespective of the manufactures of the lenses.

Background blur is a totally different effect from 3D object space perspective, but I do understand why many people are unable to tell the difference — it’s because they’ve had no formal training in both art and technical drawing. Absolutely no criticism intended: I never expect amateur photographers to have formal training in anything.

Thank you For your detailed explanation, Pete! I was indeed confused about ” background blur ” and ” 3D object space perspective” ! With your explanation I finally get a wisp of understanding into it . There a long way to go for me in photography field, I am just an amateur. I really appreciated your reply, thanks for advice I will read Elizabeth’s article right away !

Hi Ian, I’m glad you found my reply useful. Here’s some more info that might be of interest.

You mentioned the colour difference between the Zeiss & Nikkor lenses. Zeiss lenses are possibly the most colour neutral amongst the manufacturers due to the glass and the lens coatings they use. Personally, I prefer the colour rendition of Nikkors, which have a slight purple/magenta tint — note, that was my preference when using colour reversal film [aka: slide film]. With digital photography, it’s a non-issue because the colour rendition can be adjusted with in-camera controls or software editor controls. Same applies to contrast and saturation. Also, the scene lighting makes far more difference to these things than does the difference between lenses!

For head and shoulders portraits on FX format, I use focal lengths from 135 to 300 mm; this requires a subject-to-camera distance far enough to reduce the large nose, small ears perspective effect to an acceptable level (an effect which cannot be corrected by software). The notion that an 85 mm lens is a portrait lens is a myth, which was instigated many decades ago by lens manufacturers. I use my 85 mm f/1.8 for landscape and architecture photography :-) These are simply my personal preferences; I’m not suggesting that they are ‘correct’ choices. The wonderful thing about photography (and art) is that we are completely free to create our own style(s). I’ll never be good enough to match the famous photographers, but I have no desire to emulate their work: doing so would be a form of plagiarism.

The problem with reading equipment reviews is that they create an expectation of, and a desire to see, the mentioned differences between the equipment. Because humans suffer from a plethora of cognitive biases[1], this primed expectation plus desire easily leads us down the garden path towards spending as much money as possible on camera equipment, instead of investing time and money in learning techniques that improve our chosen style(s) of photography. Equipment reviews also lead us to see only that which we’ve been told we should see, which fuels our innate confirmation bias.

“Confirmation bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.” [1] en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ive_biases

Thanks again Pete! (Sorry for my terrible grammar) Your answer is very sophisticated! very helpful ! It was indeed true that these days softwares can correct nearly everything, color tint, contrast, distortion , saturation and even “fake” sharpening, so the different between lenses may be very subtle. I agree with you that lighting make a Hugh difference to almost everything including contrast , sharpness , saturation. I have very little knowledge in lighting … I can not use flash effectively and my shot was 99% ambient light, I will try to study further into it. I really am suffering from “cognitive bias” ! By marketing , reviews, internet hype, etc.. And also GAS, thinking that better gears will make me jump rank from an amateur to enthusiastic photographer. Agree with you that instead of spending time reading reviews of cameras gears and stuck with controversies about “which lenses is better” I think I rather grab my camera and go for a walk, take some landscape/street/portrait shots with my gf , reading articles to improve my technique and also training my “eye”. I was surprised that you use 85 mm as landscape and architecture photography! , I guess it will have nearly zero distortion which is amazing! May be I will try 135 ++ mm for portrait as you did and see if it fit my style or not. Now when I have free time I am trying to perceive everything around me using my eyes as a lense with different focal length(angle of view), to see if I can make interesting photos and composition with 50 mm? , 35 mm or 85 mm, 135 mm, to train my ” eye” I’m not sure if this can help or not, hope that someday I can create some stunning photos. I found Elizabeth’s articles is indeed very helpful ! Thanks photographylife for creating a great community, thanks for your kind reply Pete :) thanks for Wikipedia link :D

Hi Ian, Your comments are easy to understand, which I think is far more important than using correct English grammar!

Here’s an article by Rick Keller which may help you to train your “eye” [particularly the section entitled Composition Card]: Construction of a Photograph: The Process of Visualizationphotographylife.com/const…ualization

If you have any specific questions about photography, I suggest posting them on the PhotographyLife Forums [the link is located under the website banner: REVIWS, PHOTOGRAPHY TIPS, FORUM …]. You’ll need to create a login account to post comments/questions. Don’t expect an immediate reply because I and others don’t check it every day for new questions. When you post a question, you have the option to receive an e-mail notification each time someone replies.

From your comments, I think your enthusiasm for photography, plus your desire to train your “eye” to visualize your final image before you press the shutter button, will lead you down the path towards producing images which give you a great deal of pleasure and sense of achievement.

Best wishes, and many thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience, Pete

Thanks again Pete :)) Great idea about the composition chart, this was exactly what I want ! , really clever method :D Will definitely try to make some.! >< The knowledges I got from this site are invaluable ! I will make an account as your suggestion ^^ Photo critique section seems interesting too ! May be in the future I will post some photos of mine so I can get some critiques from expert and further improve my skill. Thanks for everything including your kind compliment and every replies :D Hope you have fun in photography !

I was dubious when I could not see any significant differences in your specimen images, but realised that you were not entirely serious only when you claimed that the Universe is permeated with ether!

p.s. Tesla may have investigated the idea of an all-pervading ether BEFORE Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity, but he was no idiot and I am pretty sure that he was convinced by the successes of Relativity theory that the ether does NOT exist, and that the properties of space are properly described by field theories (most recently the Higgs field which is responsible for some particles having mass).

Of course there are plenty of slightly barmy folk, convinced that they are polymath geniuses. The Internet gives them a platform to share their “insights”.

Some are still trying to convince us that the ether is real. For example R Webster Kehr. He has even hijacked Tesla’s name for his website, so as to suggest some connection between his fantasies and Tesla’s ideas. As well as “demonstrating” the reality of the ether, Kehr claims to have “proven” that photons do not exist, to have found a unified theory of everything in physics, and to have shown that Evolution by Natural Selection is just wrong!!

I honestly believed the ”before” image with bright corners was the fixed prime lens, better contrast difference between forground and background …. but, still, the difference isn’t great As for the cat, the effect isn’t there at all for me.

I was actually looking for this link yannickkhong.com/blog/…-of-3d-pop when i clicked on yours In this link, the few comparisons really do show something, real ”3d effect”

I do see differences on the link i posted ( well, only the bench/snow picture actually ) but maybe i’m being fooled, i don’t know. Some talk about lens with 3d pop having a ”soul” which is ridiculous argument

Lead glass does NOT “automatically”correct aberrations; aberration is caused by the shape, thickness and material the lens is made of. Aspheric lenses are used to correct the astigmatic effect of grouping several spherical lenses together, improving sharpness at the edges.

Light moves at different speeds in different mediums. High-Index plastics and lead glass have higher indices of refraction, which causes light to move even slower through these materials than crown glass, CR-39 plastic, etc. This allows you to make thinner lenses, but has nothing to do with “3D pop”. Incidentally, a higher index of refraction causes more chromatic aberration and more glare on the surface of the lens.

You will never correct common optical errors with lens material alone. In spectacle lenses it requires the correct combination of front and back curves (or aspheric surfaces for higher prescriptions and digital free-form surfaces for multifocals), the optimal material for the prescription and the patient’s frame, and a good anti-reflective coating. In camera lenses (compound lenses), where there are usually several groups of lens elements, you need to know when to use bioconvex, biconcave, meniscus and toric lenses; additionally, each element must be anti-reflective, and more than one lens material is often used to help control aberrations.

Finally, there is no such thing as “ether”. 3D pop seems to be a vague catch-all phrase used to describe the look of older lenses that were not able to control the optical aberrations they caused because lens manufacturers had to rely on equations and expertise rather than computers when designing lenses. Frankly, modern lenses look better to me. They usually have better contrast and yes, they are sharper.

LOL! Don’t you get it? This was all a ruse! It’s easy to slag the notion of certain lenses having more 3D pop, much harder if not impossible to prove that they don’t.

I’m sure Nasim had good intentions to disprove everything he mocked until he took the time to actually shoot noted 3D pop lenses against noted flat lenses. Once he did he probably realized his folly and decided to let sleeping dogs lie. We couldn’t have sarcasm overturned by science… that would discredit Photography Life itself.

“don’t be a victim to modern day marketing – there is absolutely no need to buy expensive, high-end lenses. Aside from sharpness, they add nothing else to your images, period.”

Interestingly, many lens reviews including yours indicate quite the opposite that modern (Nikon) 1.8 lenses are sharper than their 1.4 counterparts. Take the 85/1.8G vs 85/1.4G for example. So I really don’t understand why one may want a fast 1.4 lens if 1.8 outperforms it and also because most don’t shoot wide open to be on the safe side. I hoped maybe 1.4s had that special color rendition on all apertures worth investing in.

I dont know who is right or wrong when it comes to the objective science.

All I can say is that I prefer the images my Nikon 50mm 1.2 ais and Nikom 105mm 2.5 ais gives me compared to my 50mm 1.8g and 85mm 1.8g (ok I know 85 vs 105 is not apples and apples, but as a portrait lens when not needing autofocus I will get the 105 out more often).

I guess its subjective and more to do with the character of the lenses than anything else (micro contrast, 3d pop etc.)

P.s. Fun article and great website. I also enjoyed your ebook on landscape photography! If nothing else, the comments and debate highlights what a passionate community the photography scene is ?

So all this article was just a joke? :( – I just found out yesterday about the 3d POP and micro contrast, and feeling I just found out about a rather “new and photo life-changing” subject, I have been reading for two days about it, even changing my lens investment plans. I read the Angry Photographer and articles of Yanick Khong, but as I read I just felt confused, like that feeling something about them don’t convince me 100% (Angry Ph’s personality is somewhat difficult).

I read this article with a lot of interest, since it is very well written, and it supported with facts everything I just studied about lenses (“Glass is Evil”). As for my photography, I’m not neceserilly a thinker that “expensive=better”, I just want to achieve a look I thought “L series, G Masters, ART lines” would give me, that storytelling feeling you see in photographers ( like Instagram account @Because People Matter, or Steve McCurry, for example).

Since I’m in the search of a lens that would give me that “something” I thought was sharpness, and then learned what I needed was micro contrast and 3d pop, I passed from thinking I needed the Sigma 85mm 1.4 ART for a portrait lens with that “something I thought was sharpening”, but after learning M-C and 3DP, I discovered the Mitakon Speedmaster 85mm 1.2 lens. Of course, for me it’s a big change in lens, the Mitakon will be a more risky shot, since manual it’s not my strength (for now!) and it’s completely different than the Sigma, which gives me confidence. It’s not that I was planning to throw away al my (few) lenses, but I thought that I can risk and try something new in my photography.

But when I read the LAST PARAGRAPH, and realized it was all a joke, I’m more confused than ever :( . Must be the 2 day on a row reading about a new topic. Don’t get me wrong, joke aside or not, it’s an incredible article. But now I’m not sure about nothing. Is micro contrast and 3d pop true? Mitakon will give me that magical something? or stick with Sigma?

I appreciate if you could help me a bit to get out of my confusion. Anyway, nice article man!

We all have different abilities to see. There are properties out there that are easy to see, but not easy to measure.

I am old enough to remember how bokeh was once an unquantifiable mystery that was not marketable. Just check old magazines for lens reviews on how this now valued feature was dissed. Three dimensionality is similar. Girls see it better so ask your girlfriend if you can not tell the difference yourself.

Trust your eyes and you own taste, and do not worry too much if you do not see what others see. It can be frustrating, but we all have different strengths.

I agree somewhat with the sarcasm in this post as I also find the discussion if Vintage or Modern lenses are better mainly pointless. Like arguing if apples or oranges are the “better” fruit.

However the sarcasm seems to be a bit one sided, and this is the point where I disagree. In a micro economic model people have choices, and they choose based on personal preference and available free income. It is pointless to argue either with anyone.

My personal opinion: Pro modern lenses: Optics have improved and continue to do so. Certain attributes that were difficult or impossible 20 years ago, can now be achieved, for a price that make them viable. (Available glass, production process, computer aided design, coatings and so on.) Corners are sharper, fields are flatter, and in conclusion MTF curves look better.

Contra modern lenses: I have the feeling that nearly all published lens tests (print and online) are 99.9% based on the same testing software and method. I further suspect that 99.9% of lens design is geared towards good results in this specific test software. It appears that this makes a) lenses look more and more similar across manufacturers and b) it seems that lens designers have less choices regarding a “look” of the lenses. “Character” seems to disappear in the process.

Pro Vintage lenses: Some lens lines have been designed at the time to achieve a specific look. It needs to be remembered, that a large portion of the engaged amateurs (and most pros) were using slide film. And after exposure there were no practical means for amateurs (limited and expensive for pro) to post-process anything. There was a distinct look to lens lines, as manufacturers tried to protect their customer base.

Some lenses are quirky, and some people like the effect for certain pictures. It is more or less the equivalent of having an effect filter. If you like that sort of thing, then there are lenses that gives you results that can not be replicated easily otherwise. (Please note the word EASILY as anything can be produced today, if you have 30 million USD for computers, some months of processing time, and a generous salary budget for specialists, even complete realistic movies.)

The quirky lenses include the “special” ones, that give certain “properties” not easily available elsewhere.

Contra Vintage lenses: Many need adapters, and EVERY adapter, even the ones without glass, can and most probably will degrade image quality. (Alingement is a critical factor) No warranty (and indeed a certain element of lottery) when buying them. Some are hard to find. Some are really expensive.

“Look”, “Character”, “Properties”

Lens tests are 99.9% limited to the following: A back illuminated black and white test target in 3m distance that tests resolution and vingnetting at different apertures. Some lens tests include field flatness as well. Some add a shot of a color checker field. BUT all of these tests are always camera specific as the sensor software has nowadays a hand in all of that. And some include 10-20 pictures and a general discussion about bokeh and the “look”

What about the properties of the lens at infinity? What about shooting against the light? What about light sources in the picture? What about low light color reproduction?

And the most important of all: how are objects rendered to shapes? The last one has something to do how object in different distances are rendered and how smooth or abrupt sharpness transitions into unsharpness. (At different distances and apertures).

Some lens tests at least try to give some answers, but overall most questions remain unanswered.

Erwin Puts (Leica) and Björn Rorslett (Nikon) have the approach that you need to shoot a lens a lot under different circumstances and with different subjects to get to “know” it’s properties. Only then will you know if it helps you for certain things, or not.

I really like their approach.

Sometimes modern lenses help me to achieve what I want, sometimes the vintage lens is better suited for the job.

First I thought you were one of the insane ones, but then I got it. This is an area with a lot of missinformation and almost religious standpoints. If one is really interested in how sharpness and micro contrast interact in lenses I recommend the late Dr. Hubert Nasse’s “How to read MTF curves”. It comes in two parts and can be found for free at lenspire.zeiss.com/photo…-articles/ A bit daunting perhaps, but still the best effort I’ve seen to try to make a lot of optics and physics understandable.

Yes, i am waiting for that also. :-) Anyway, i do like & appreciate the Look & Haptics from old manual focus lenses, and i don’t care of what specific glass sort it was being made. But from my own findings, i do must say, older manual focus lenses do have a specific look, whileas current lenses do render pictures more flat, that is true. Maybe i am too old for this, but i don’t appreciate, and do not want technical perfect sharpness at max. aperture… ;-)

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.